weeyin

I don't see how anyone can be a red hot favourite at this stage if we are still interviewing candidates next week.

None of the current stories have any quotes, which doesn't surprise me, as our Board have always done a great job of keeping everyone in the dark. I'd be surprised if the appointment isn't a suprise - everything else is just speculation to fill the paper.

Well he is 100% correct in his story. No quotes and "*could* be set for a sensational return". Of course he would also be correct if he said that I "could be set for a sensational return" too, because the Board hasn't revealed anything to the media about how I *could* be on the shortlist.

The names the media has quoted during our last few appointments have been well wide of the mark. I have no reason to think they will be any more accurate this time. It seems they get most of their info from speculation on here.

Would not be surprised by that - plus 3 dire performances to immediately follow.

Thanks, but no.

Most clubs around the globe have investors that lend money to them at a low interest rate - or failing that, a bank to do the same. So unless we ever manage to attract someone who wants to buy the club in the knowledge they are unlikely to even get their money back if they could sell it, there aren't really many other options. As for the Well Society, I thought the plan was to have the Board run the club pretty much the way it does now. It's not going to be an Ebbsfleet Utd affair where members vote on every decision.

If we do, the new gaffer will have some cash to bring in a new face.

Your second sentence shows why the first one would never had happened if Clarkson was in our team this season.

Talk about revisionism - that doesn't even make sense. It was Clarskon or Ojamaa, and given that we had a team that scored 64 goals the previous campaign, but lacked a little mobility up top, Ojamaa made plenty of sense. Of course, it's easy to be a guru after the fact. Also, what message would it have sent to Moore and Erwin when people are moaning about youngsters not getting their chance.

Roy Keane does walking away pretty regularly. However, his track record as a manager isn't good; his time at Ipswich being a good example. Plus he is a knob of a human being.

Hamilton may be, I doubt Inverness are. If you want us to play at the level of Accies, however with tiny crowds and spending most of their existence in the 1st Division, then it's a great strategy. If we pay 10th place/1st round exit wages, then we are destined for a fate like St. Mirren. Of course, every once in a while we might get lucky - like Accies are this season - but I'm pretty confident Accies will be back in a bottom 6 battle next season. Don't forget also, that Accies can't survive without their plastic pitch being rented out 7 days a week. Nothing wrong with that, but not a path I'd want to go down. Given that our support was moaning the years we finished 3rd and 2nd, you can imagine what they'd be like if we were 8th or 9th every season.

The problem with that is you'll end up with a squad that is hovering around relegation each year and does nothing in the cups. There might be one off seasons where you reach mid-table, but bottom 6 would be the norm.

Like other posters, I hate the Cup starting this early in the year. Hoping we are one of those teams who forgets their league troubles and turns in a decent performance, but Utd have to start strong favorites for this one.

Ojamaa is a bad example as we made a tidy sum bringing him in for free, paying him peanuts then selling him on. However, even when he had assets like Randolph in the books, we didn't receive a single offer for him. I think everyone agrees you shouldn't spend more than you earn - the difficulty in this climate is projecting income for the coming season. As we have shown, it's just as easy for our team to be in a relegation battle as it is fighting for 2nd spot. It doesn't seem unreasonable to budget for mid-table. If you budget for bottom 3 or 4, that leads to other problems (such as only being able to afford a team that finishes in the bottom 3 or 4). Oh, and let's not forget - as much as we (and I include myself in that) all enjoyed Rangers starting over in the bottom league, that took a lot of money out of our league from TV money to sponsorships. We definitely need to do a better job budgeting, but like many businesses, we have been hit by a combination of significant economic factors that have made it especially difficult to predict income.

Wonder if the funds being raised will include the cost of letting the non-local members participate in the meetings. After the song and dance made about attracting us from all over the globe, we are still prevented from joining any of the discussions. About time we started making use of 21st Century technology.

Like every club, there is a soft period in the winter where we need to borrow money based on projected income later in the year. We have trouble getting short term bank loans for this, so the Society provides a loan on favourable terms. That seems like a sensible business model to me for a club that doesn't have benefactors to turn to instead. Apart from this season, where it has remained flat, our budget has been cut year on year for the last 4 or 5 years. That seems like a reasonable approach to me compared to making one huge cut and putting us in the relegation zone.

It's not what I think that it matters, it's what history shows. If you put a bunch of youngsters in a struggling team and they get hammered a few times and the crowd starts giving them pelters, it can hinder their development. I'm not against giving our youngsters an appearance every now and then, but you only have to look at our U20s results (losing to Dundee most recently) to see the inconsistency you can expect.

If it wasn't for the Society and their loans to the club, we could have been in administration by now. For that reason alone I'm glad I put my money in. That doesn't mean I'm happy with the current situation, but I totally understand why no details can be given to a broader audience. It's more the content, nature and style of the communications that concern me as they sound very unprofessional and, initially at least, were more about scaremongering than information. If we had something like the following, a lot of this could have been avoided - "there are discussions ongoing with potential investors, and until such time as informing members meets the relevant financial regulations, we will be unable to provide more information. Rest assured that in the event the Society meets its target and is in a position to safeguard the club, all decisions will be put to the membership for a vote"

Doesn't change the fact that there was zero expectation and zero pressure on them, which makes a huge difference to young players. Would be a different story at Fir Park where we cannot afford to be relegated.

Different scenario, though, First of all, the youngsters were the only players Hearts had left on their books. Secondly, everyone expected them to be relegated after their points deduction (and player cutbacks) - so zero pressure on the kids.

They've found some serious investors - that's why the Well Society are in panic mode.

After members vet the proposals and vote on the offer, surely?* *Not holding my breath on that one.

I never understood the ridicule or hate for Hughes - he has a pretty decent track record as a manager. Presumably it's based on the way he comes over in interviews.

I'm not saying that's wrong, but it seems bit strange that the Trustees could be dismissed without as resolution and a vote from the Trust Members.