weeyin

How many did we lose with him in this season and last? I wish stats were more reliable.

Direct email has always worked for me too. If the website's email link was broken, they might not be aware, so worth mentioning that to to them as well.

Moult has been terrific this season. The big question in the summer will be, if we get a decent offer, do we sell him while he's hot? I imagine we will move either him or Johnson on given the needs and philosophy of the club. If that's the case we need to hope the same scouting infrastructure that identified him can deliver the goods again.

I'm hopeful it was our new scouting system that identified those 3 rather than Baraclough, but I guess time will tell.

Aye, great win given the personnel reshuffle. Proved our mettle and confirms Aberdeen's bottle merchant status (although if we beat Celtic it could put them back in the hunt!)

After we went 1 down was hoping for a point. That was an unexpected bonus.

Must be a long drop from the treatment table to the floor.

When it's a choice between Celtic and Rangers, of course he's a Celtic man. Aberdeen was where he was winning European trophies, though, so a little more impartial when it comes to choosing between those two.

Nice one, guys. Exactly the kind of community activity the club and The Society are trying to promote.

Based on what?

Weren't they docked points becasue they cancelled without the permission of the league? I remember listening to Danny Baker's show discussing this (or a similar case) where the club had said they cancelled "in fairness to the fans" because they couldn't put out a full strength team. His argument was that fans tend to appreciate that and if a team of youngsters had to be put out, any team's fans would give them total backing. Having said that, I think McGhee made a good point in his press conference yesterday. Given the current battle for top spot, he wanted to be as fair as possible when we played Aberdeen and Celtic by putting out our strongest side in both.

That is an insightful interview. Of course he's going to put a positive spin on things, but if what he says about budgets and loan repayments etc. is accurate (and no reason to believe it's not) then it sounds like we a have a good foundation to build on. Now I need a shower after clicking on a Daily Mail link.

Exactly this. For the past few years, people on here have been complaining about how Dundee Utd were selling on players for huge fees and raking it in. Except, they were spending huge amounts of money on wages, wallowing in millions of debt (which has been assumed by private individuals skimming off the transfer fees) and having a fire sale on their assets. Would anyone want us to swap places with Dundee Utd now?

The Society is not running the club. The Society owns the club (or will own the club once the deal is done). The Board will run the club. The Society will influence who is on the Board.

I think the chances of Les being upset at anything posted on this site are, as they say, slim to none. And Slim has left the building.

More experience comes at a financial cost. There is no reason we can't be bringing on young exciting talent. In fact, as a business model, that's exactly what we should be doing so we can sell them on. That should be happening in parallel to picking up guys like Moult and Johnson that we can improve and move on for a profit.

I'm not sure if there is a number quoted anywhere, but I see McGhee in the Evening Times today said that he'd be fine to go with 9 or 10 of his first team regulars, but if he only had 5 or 6 he'd be looking for a postponement.

http://www.thewellsociety.co.uk/pledge/ has the various options.

As for lacking experience to run the club, I'm not 100% sure about that, but if it is true then, as owners, we are free to go and find people who do have the experience to run it for us.

From an Aberdeen perspective, it would be easy to see this request as more to do with our injuries than some bug hitting the squad. I think an SPFL decision would be our only real chance of postponement.

Apart from the initial cock up when an error in the Society provisions meant we had to buy shares, the Society only lends money to the club, so it should never suffer from empty coffers. In fact, as funds are paid from members, the coffers should see a steady growth.

I thought from various Twitter statements the Society did have a table set out at most home games. Has that not been happening?

Apparently there are multiple databases that they are trying to consolidate, but it has been recognized as an issue.

"The Society" isn't running the club, and there was never any intention that they would. The Society owns the club. The Board will still be running it and the members will get a say on who is on the Board. Except that might not happen until Les gets his money back regardless of the shareholding.

I remember years ago on Radio Clyde, Jimmy Sanderson (told you it was years ago) was discussing whether TV evidence should be allowed when reviewing disciplinary issues. There was great debate at the time, because only one or two games were being covered each weekend, so some people argued it wasn't fair to use it if it wasn't available for each match. His point was that ignoring TV evidence would be like the police ignoring CCTV evidence because not all houses have CCTV cameras. I don't see how the Compliance Officer reviewing the games is Trial by Television given that he has access to all the footage of all the games these days. I know people have a low opinion of these guys, but I seriously doubt that the process consists of listening to Pat Nevin on a Sunday evening and then just looking at what he said. The bottom line is Skippy elbowed someone in the face and we all saw it on telly. The level of conspiracy theories, and suspicions of bias, and outrage is reaching OF levels of paranoia. If we were being hauled up in front of the authorities every week, that would be one thing, but the number of occasions that has happened are pretty rare. Not only that, but there have also been occasions when we have had red cards rescinded, in part, because of the TV footage that has shown no red card offence was committed. If we are happy to accept TV evidence when it clears players, we can't really argue when TV evidence identifies offences being committed.