Drew Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 What's the matter with the scratch card system. A little too controversial.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 Perhaps we could arrange a bucket collection outside the stadium to raise funds for a new assistant manager. If successful, we could consider a tombola to keep the floodlights on, and a sponsored silence to buy fuel for Tommy Doc's lawnmower. Why not use the funds to kit out the new bar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 A little too controversial.... ... A little more action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 Here is my best StuD impression...... It is a form of gambling. What is a so-called Community club doing exploiting weak willed poverty stricken Paisley punters of their dole money when they could be spending it on MadDog 2021 instead. It's all Gilmour's fault...... Now we really missed a trick when Will Haining's missus was here - we could have had "Scratch & Sniff" instead. You forgot to add that he gets complimentary scratchcards every Saturday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 I'm led to believe that the issue Rae was referring to in his presser was actually related to the way in which Alex Miller left the club and actually is nothing to do with budgets, assistant managers or anything else. Miller obviously prepared the team all week and indeed it was his decision to drop Baird, play Watson at CH and play Shanks & Gallagher up front. When Rae decided to take the team I don't think Miller took very kindly to it, which is I suppose understandable, and his departure was a bit acrimonious which is why he wasn't in the dug out on Saturday. So there you go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 I'm led to believe that the issue Rae was referring to in his presser was actually related to the way in which Alex Miller left the club and actually is nothing to do with budgets, assistant managers or anything else. Miller obviously prepared the team all week and indeed it was his decision to drop Baird, play Watson at CH and play Shanks & Gallagher up front. When Rae decided to take the team I don't think Miller took very kindly to it, which is I suppose understandable, and his departure was a bit acrimonious which is why he wasn't in the dug out on Saturday. So there you go. Who told you this? Spill the beans. Your pals in the consortium was it? Feeding you tit-bits were they? Don't want to upset them do you? Fanboy...... Fades to distance as man in white coat turns up from Wishaw to wheel me away... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Original 59er Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 Slash Posted Today, 10:58 Now we really missed a trick when Will Haining's missus was here - we could have had "Scratch & Sniff" instead Slash, you have some randomly nefarious thoughts that wander through your head! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northstbuddie Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 I'm led to believe that the issue Rae was referring to in his presser was actually related to the way in which Alex Miller left the club and actually is nothing to do with budgets, assistant managers or anything else. Miller obviously prepared the team all week and indeed it was his decision to drop Baird, play Watson at CH and play Shanks & Gallagher up front. When Rae decided to take the team I don't think Miller took very kindly to it, which is I suppose understandable, and his departure was a bit acrimonious which is why he wasn't in the dug out on Saturday. So there you go. If this is the case it does not explain why Alex Rae still has not appointed his assistant nearly one week after he took over the reins. After the shambolic and unprofessional recruitment of Rae, surely the BoD are not now about to exacerbate the situation even further with regard to the assistant manager's post. The new manager deserves the full support of the BoD in his efforts to get the club back on the rails. Rae, Longwell and the supporters deserve better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Zo Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 The Christmas period is a busy time for taxi drivers. I imagine Farrell would want to exploit that for the next week or so then take up the post as number 2 at St Mirren. Just a thought. ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 If this is the case it does not explain why Alex Rae still has not appointed his assistant nearly one week after he took over the reins. After the shambolic and unprofessional recruitment of Rae, surely the BoD are not now about to exacerbate the situation even further with regard to the assistant manager's post. The new manager deserves the full support of the BoD in his efforts to get the club back on the rails. Rae, Longwell and the supporters deserve better. I wouldn't make any rash assumptions about that mate. It's not always as easy as just saying this is the guy who he wants and that's it. If Farrell is the choice then it will be up to him to agree a contract and terms with the board that suit both parties. The fact we are paying Murray for the next 3 months and possibly Spalding too might also be impacting on the budget that is available, genuinely don't know. Rae needs an assistant, I can't believe there is any debate about that, and Longwell is not that man (unless we get another head of youth in). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeBud Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 If this is the case it does not explain why Alex Rae still has not appointed his assistant nearly one week after he took over the reins. After the shambolic and unprofessional recruitment of Rae, surely the BoD are not now about to exacerbate the situation even further with regard to the assistant manager's post. The new manager deserves the full support of the BoD in his efforts to get the club back on the rails. Rae, Longwell and the supporters deserve better. Let's just assume for a minute that it is the case.........where are you getting your information that the BoD are holding up the appointment of an Assistant Manager, I haven't heard anything with regard to it other than the "2 plus 2" assumptions that came out of ARs' interview which Divs' post above refutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northstbuddie Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 (edited) I wouldn't make any rash assumptions about that mate. It's not always as easy as just saying this is the guy who he wants and that's it. If Farrell is the choice then it will be up to him to agree a contract and terms with the board that suit both parties. The fact we are paying Murray for the next 3 months and possibly Spalding too might also be impacting on the budget that is available, genuinely don't know. Rae needs an assistant, I can't believe there is any debate about that, and Longwell is not that man (unless we get another head of youth in). It apparently was not an issue with Rae's appointment. He was only interviewed on Friday morning and was officially appointed manager before tea time. I wonder how the other applicants for the manager's job felt when Rae was being strongly tipped as early as Sunday but did not apparently speak to anyone from St Mirren until Friday morning. The BoD certainly did not waste any time in making up their mind on Rae - seemingly days before he was even interviewed. I have made the assumption that the reason for the delay in appointing the assistant rests with the BoD and not the new manager - but I could be wrong. Edited December 23, 2015 by northstbuddie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callum Gilhooley Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 I wouldn't make any rash assumptions about that mate. It's not always as easy as just saying this is the guy who he wants and that's it. If Farrell is the choice then it will be up to him to agree a contract and terms with the board that suit both parties. The fact we are paying Murray for the next 3 months and possibly Spalding too might also be impacting on the budget that is available, genuinely don't know. Rae needs an assistant, I can't believe there is any debate about that, and Longwell is not that man (unless we get another head of youth in). Would it not be easier if you listed the people who we`re NOT still paying ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 It apparently was not an issue with Rae's appointment. He was only interviewed on Friday morning and was officially appointed manager before tea time. I wonder how the other applicants for the manager's job felt when Rae was being strongly tipped as early as Sunday but did not apparently speak to anyone from St Mirren until Friday morning. The BoD certainly did not waste any time in making up their mind on Rae - seemingly days before he was even interviewed. I have made the assumption that the reason for the delay in appointing the assistant rests with the BoD and not the new manager - but I could be wrong. I think there was some gamesmanship involved in the media soundbites regarding Alex Rae. It would be naive to think he trapped up for the first time on Friday morning, spoke to the board for an hour and was given the job and signed a contract that same morning. The first time his name was mentioned was the day after Murray resigned, the bookies had him at 1/5 by the Weds. It was all a bit of a pantomime if you ask me. Either way it's not worth worrying about as it's done now. Suffice to say the relationship between Alex, the board and Brian is absolutely fine, there are NO issues. Sorry if that disappoints the doom-mongers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 Whit's a presser? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 Whit's a presser? Nae idea. Lord Pityme is a de-presser, though, if that helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linwood buddie Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 Whit's a presser? Trooser? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 Could be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 The reason the selling consortium have the shares they have is because they underwrote 3 previous share issues that were, by and large, ignored by the support and anyone else who might have been interested. This left them picking up the shares. The first share issue was 17 years ago. The club isn't being "hindered" by the selling consortium whatsoever. The selling consortium and a couple of others are the very reason the club is still in existence today and why its in a brand new stadium with no debt. To suggest that there are people out there who would like to subsidise St. Mirren is just ludicrous! After the first issue was undersubscribed why did the BoD expect the next two to be different? I agree with the Board's current policy of balancing the books but looking back in seems that we let the guys in charge during the early to mid '90's off pretty easy - perhaps SG should have carried out his threat to take the club into Administration when Barr Construction were pressing for repayment back in '98. As for any fan buyout, like scoop1987 (who he?), I'd be reluctant to reimburse the Consortium for any shares purchased after the end of the 2008 season. I said six years ago that if the Consortium could get the £2M they were looking for then good luck to them but now it's more a case of cutting their losses. ****************** Minor quibble - the first of the three share issues was before the birth of my daughter so I reckon it was April 1996, roughly two years before the attempted takeover by Reg Brearley in 1998. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norrie82 Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 So if there's no issues then he will get his number 2 ow to help dig us out of the mess were in? Or will we need to wait a few weeks until we've got enough cash? Without being "negative " div it's best he gets his man in now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 So if there's no issues then he will get his number 2 ow to help dig us out of the mess were in? Or will we need to wait a few weeks until we've got enough cash? Without being "negative " div it's best he gets his man in now. Don't disagree mate. As far as I know discussions are taking place, so guess when there is something to know the club will announce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nosferatu Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 (edited) After the first issue was undersubscribed why did the BoD expect the next two to be different? I agree with the Board's current policy of balancing the books but looking back in seems that we let the guys in charge during the early to mid '90's off pretty easy - perhaps SG should have carried out his threat to take the club into Administration when Barr Construction were pressing for repayment back in '98. As for any fan buyout, like scoop1987 (who he?), I'd be reluctant to reimburse the Consortium for any shares purchased after the end of the 2008 season. I said six years ago that if the Consortium could get the £2M they were looking for then good luck to them but now it's more a case of cutting their losses. ****************** Minor quibble - the first of the three share issues was before the birth of my daughter so I reckon it was April 1996, roughly two years before the attempted takeover by Reg Brearley in 1998. Think you are correct about a share issue in 96. Too far back in time for me to remember! Would imagine that would have been the Earlie regime.Did the BoD think that subsequent share issues would be any different? Well, I think they thought that the post Brealey share issue would be different. The club was on the brink and I was at the AGM where the shareholders all enthusiastically said they would back a share issue. When push came to shove though, they didn't. As for the share issue in 99/00, I don't think they did think it would be different. But they had no alternative in order to fund the new stand to get us into the SPL. As for going into administration, I think the fear was that the ground, even without supermarket planning permission, was worth more than the debts. The land could have been sold to pay off the debts. Not sure that such brinkmanship would have saved the club in its current state. History shows what happened to Third Lanark, Clydebank, Airdrieonians, Clyde and now Rangers. To varying degrees, things have changed for ever for these clubs. Maybe St. Mirren would have continued but would we now be playing out of Firhill? The BoD saved the club then went on to deliver a brand new stadium, clear the debt, get us training facilities and along the way, 10 years in the top flight and a major trophy. I think they are entitled to try and get their money back for their shares if they can. Edited December 23, 2015 by nosferatu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 (edited) I'm led to believe that the issue Rae was referring to in his presser was actually related to the way in which Alex Miller left the club and actually is nothing to do with budgets, assistant managers or anything else. Miller obviously prepared the team all week and indeed it was his decision to drop Baird, play Watson at CH and play Shanks & Gallagher up front. When Rae decided to take the team I don't think Miller took very kindly to it, which is I suppose understandable, and his departure was a bit acrimonious which is why he wasn't in the dug out on Saturday. So there you go. You can prove this is the case can you ? people putting one and one together to make two is one thing that cannot be proven, you are posting the above as being the reason for Alex Rae stating that there are issues he needs to resolve and he will deal with that internally, when did he tell you that and why does he not tell the rest of the support ? when did Miller actually leave the club, was it before or after Rae made those comments ? if Miller departed before Saturday (reason why he was not in the dugout) why does Rae still have to deal with the issue, if it had already walked out of the door. A wee statement from the club would be enough to clear this up (because we are all genuinely concerned that there appears to be unrest within the club already, less than a week into the new managers tenure) but we know we will not get that, all we have is speculation from people who have nothing to back it up with, yourself putting this post up and others putting one and one together are much the same, it is just tittle tattle and speculation and leaves us wondering when we will get any real sense of settlement. I know you mean well Div but " i understand this is the case" does not help. Edited December 23, 2015 by buddiecat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
class of 76-77 Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 Is it just me or do some of our support genuinely get a kick out of stirring up unrest. I couldn't give two f**ks if Alex Miller left with his lip trembling. The fact is he made it quite clear that he was not interested in taking the helm so we move on and Alex Rae quite rightly took up his position in the dugout with immediate effect. I'm sure Davie Longwell can adequately perform a dual role with the development squad and assist AR while the club sort out the assistant appointment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergie's no1 fan Posted December 23, 2015 Report Share Posted December 23, 2015 No doubt some fans would have moaned if Miller was in the dugout on Saturday and Rae was watching from the stand. 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.