StAndrew7

Same; he was never "elected" into such a position, either. The arrogance in suggesting that's what he was there to do when he had no mandate to is off the charts. Like you say; "the 29%" are all individuals who can vote and can represent themselves just fine, thanks.

There was definitely chat about us not wanting to pay compensation for him when we appointed Hammell.

Aye it was spending double what was going to be invested over the piece by the WS and EB in the in the first couple of years or something.

I think this is my issue with the whole thing; what other benefits, exactly? Backing an investment based on what "might" have transpired is incredibly risky, particularly when said investor doesn't have any track record in the area they're wanting to invest into aside from making a couple of sports documentaries. There was absolutely no substance to any of what Barmack offered, other than "this is the kind of what we'll do with AI and other shit". There wasn't a definitive business plan in any shape or form, there were incorrect figures used etc. It wasn't just the value; it was the whole thing. The £300k number I quoted was just the tip of the iceberg for me, you can see that from my previous posts on the matter. It's just the first one I go to for demonstration of how shit the whole thing was. I agree that the Society needs to start showing progress on things; I mentioned over on P&B that I'm concerned they've given this month as a date for announcing the first strategic partner, for example. I'd caveat that with that we do need to remember that Society is effectively starting from the ground up; there are significant governance issues within the Club which need to be sorted; not least how board members are appointed and also how to put in place checks and balances to avoid us getting into the situation we found ourselves in this year. Effectively five people were in control of whether or not an investment should be recommended to the club shareholders. Also, my understanding is that the recommendation/vote for the investment at Executive Board level took place prior to the wider members of the Society's board being consulted and asked to provide their own position on the matter to properly inform its representatives. That also needs sorted, or was just a massive overstep of their roles by the two WS reps to vote in favour without consulting their peers. As a random thought, was Douglas interviewed when he was appointed, or did he just get a seat at the table because he was on the WS Board? Did any of those who became Board members at that point go through a formal interview process, providing examples of where they've had direct input and membership on an Executive Board of a football club? I doubt it. I don't think anyone is against investment on the right terms, with the right people at the fore of it providing X,Y,Z which benefits the Club, Society and the local community. Time will tell if/when that happens, but I fear if the Society doesn't start to provide more solid updates on it, people will start to get restless. I'm willing to give them time but the quote of October for the first investor is just a rod for their own backs, as it'll give folk wanting to see them fail (not suggesting you are one of those) ammunition to get started.

I don't think anyone is questioning his commitment to the Club or the record of the work he's done alongside McMahon which is overwhelmingly positive. He says as much in his statement; the Club is being left in a secure financial position, setting up the WS as majority owner etc. What he neglects to mention in his statement is that he was willing to throw a lot (if not all) of that work away over the summer to bring in an investment which (blatantly, imho) was a terrible deal for the Club and would completely undermine, or even remove majority fan ownership. £300k for immediate effective control and Chairmanship of the Executive Board to someone without any previous experience of running a football club? Surely he can see the irony in that, given what he's said about the Society's sub-committee in his statement? The Society has put in triple (I think probably more) that in its time and not gotten anything other than a nod of thanks in the accounts and at the AGM. He has tarnished his good work with what happened this summer and with this final statement. I'm sorry, but you can't play down just how serious his actions over the summer could have been for the Club. The WS as majority owner has every right to interview who it wishes to appoint to the Executive Board as its representatives. The fact that he resigned as chair of the WS board because the opinion of the majority didn't agree with his own and subsequently remained in his seat on the Exec Board which was to represent the WS as a majority owner until now, is an absolute nonsense. To then to have the gall to expect he retains this seat effectively "just because" of his previous record absolutely reeks of cronyism and is everything that's wrong with Scottish football as a whole from top to bottom. There's a dignity in accepting that you've lost with grace and good wishes. This isn't it.

Yup. His seat as a Director was to represent the WS on the Board. He resigned from the WS, saying that he didn't align with the viewpoint of the rest of the WS Board on the investment and remained on the Exec Board in a seat which was his because he was there to represent the WS board which... etc. etc. etc. Aye the 29% is basically the remaining individual shareholders; I think maybe 15-19% of that is in the hands of three or four individuals; one of whom I understand is Dickie and another is perhaps John Boyle?

Aye, I'm posting much the same over on P&B. Trying to re-write his role, clearly.

I initially read that wrongly; I thought it said the interview panel wouldn't have someone with experience but it's actually just the sub-committee he has an issue with. Bloody hell, what a petulant man. The self-entitlement to just always be involved in stuff because he's always been involved, too. Like, perhaps mention in your statement how colossally you fucked it with the Bramack situation? No? Nothing? The whole 29% shareholders thing; like, we look after our interests ourselves at the AGM, mate. And we trust the appointees to the board from the Club and WS to look after them. Also, anyone who's in the 29%... we're not in it for a return or the money. We're in it because we want to have our own bit of the Club.

I thought that was just for certain cases; maybe serious foul play or something? I may be wrong, though. Can't be arsed going through the appeals process articles etc. Edit: it might be at the panel's discretion if they add one or not; this article on Shinnie the other season says that: https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12860527/aberdeen-unhappy-with-graeme-shinnie-s-extended-four-match-ban Edit of edit: Turns out I could be arsed and aye, it is: 11.9.34 The Tribunal may make the following Determinations: (a) that the Claim is upheld and the sanction rescinded; (b)that the Claim is upheld but that a lesser cautionable offence occurred and that the said lesser cautionable offence be recorded and the automatic sanction for that offence be applied; (c) that the Claim is dismissed and the original sanction is reimposed; (d) or that the Claim is dismissed, the original sanction is reimposed and, where the terms of Paragraph 11.9.37 are applicable, that an additional match suspension shall be applied. 11.9.37 In the event of a Claim being dismissed the Tribunal must then Determine whether: (a) the Claim was an abuse of process or a delaying tactic for the sanction originally imposed; or (b) the Claim was frivolous, vexatious or entirely without merit. So basically, it's up to the Tribunal to decide if it's wasting their time or not to appeal it, then they can decide to add an extra match. It's not necessarily automatic.

Fair. Who was the random midfielder we signed a few years ago under Alexander for 6 months who was announced and then disappeared into the ether?

This is data for the last calendar year from Wyscout on our midfield. Only midfielder we have playing more forward passes than Davor is Miller and he also has the most defensive successes as well as the best pass completion in a number of areas.

I'll concede that point, but there needs to at least be some acknowledgment of the fact Davor isn't the only one who's the issue in the middle of the park. Halliday is just as bad and (I think) worse because he's able to hide in the centre circle. Davor is the one going deep to receive the ball just about every time. I do think Sparrow can be the energy we're missing in the middle for now but he's (rightly) been held back until he's up to speed.

*And 4th in the league and in a cup semi final.

This is another issue. Kettlewell doesn't really drop players unless he absolutely has to.

That's isn't the role he plays though and never has been. You can hammer him as much as you want for not being an effective contributor in the final third but if he's asked to be the holding/sitting midfielder and not be an attacking threat that's not on him. Miller and Halliday there to perform that role so he doesn't have to. If Halliday is shite at it that's not Davor's fault and leaves him even more exposed to criticism and being caught out. He came off against Livi and from what I recall (although I wasn't there, so correct me if I'm wrong) we played a slightly different system when he did; Miller went deeper, I think?

We set up to play a pretty direct counter attacking style no matter the opposition; I'd not really expect us to be retaining that much of the ball. Aberdeen and Hearts you'd expect that, despite how badly the latter are playing. St Mirren play a different style to us with wingers and it's no surprise they'd have more of the ball than we do. I agree it's a poor show against St Johnstone. On your other point, one of your main criticisms that seems to persist is Davor not playing forward passes, but you openly admit our forwards and his fellow midfielders can't retain possession. Which do you want? If he gives it to Robinson who then loses it immediately we're instantly back defending; if he recycles it backwards or out wide, he's at least removing pressure, even for a brief period of time. The system is on the manager and the job he's asking the players to execute. It's currently working relatively well; I accept improvements can be made on an individual level but they always can, no matter how well we're playing.

Yeah, we had the same frustration yesterday too. Especially when it went to 10 v 10; as much as it annoyed me, it did end up working. They created very little once we set up like that. I think it must have been instructions from SK. Sparrow coming on to replace him was clearly given instructions to get in their face more and we did look better as a result, I agree.

We've gone back and forth on Davor a fair bit the last wee while. I get that you don't rate him but I think you're being quite harsh. I think he does retain possession and then gives it to wider players (which seems to be Kettlewell's preference for moving the ball/patterns of play). Davor gets caught out because he has a lack of support and it normally leads to an opposition attack when he does; so it's more noticeable than Miller or someone else losing it further up the pitch. @MFCL84 makes a valid point and he does appear to be isolated in the pivot/anchor role. That, for me, is on Halliday who always seems to disappear up towards the final third when we're looking to build an attack, or hides behind one of the opposition.

I raise you Paul Keegan the Domino's manager.

I'm by no means a Davor fanboy; he has his limitations and often dwells on the ball too long and is caught out as a result. He's also not strong enough at times but his energy and willingness to get across the front of the back door does make up for that. But what I don't understand is the extent of the stick he gets for not playing forward passes. That's not the role he plays and isn't the role he's asked to play in our system, so why criticise him for it? He looks a far better player with Miller alongside him, because he can give him the ball to play it forward. Halliday, I agree, is a man down. The ball sailed over his head continuously yesterday. He was outstanding versus Hearts and played well against United too, but he does have a tendency to disappear for a run of games which we can't maintain. Sparrow looks like he has some energy and dig from the appearnes I've seen and it'd be good to see him starting in there at some point. When you think that of our remaining injuries, three of them are central midfielders, I think we're coping quite well. There's improvements to be made in the final third but we've definitely addressed the main deficiencies of last season at the back. Would it be wrong of me to say I hope Casey doesn't win any appeal so we get a better look at Balmer?

Mark O'Hara, Kevin Van Veen, Jimmy Scott, Mikael Mandron and Charles Dunne all got their arses handed to them yesterday. 😅

It would absolutely have been a handball last season, the fact they've relaxed the rules there a bit shows how ridiculous it was last year! Loved today. Absolute chaos and got one over on Robbo and his absolute haddies when normally it would have been the other way round.

Gordon recovered well after his mistake which led to the goal, agreed. I went for Miller but it was a flip of a coin between him and Ox.

I think you're spot on with your middle point. The rest I think might be passing judgement a little too soon/making some presumptions (which we all are at this point, it's a forum for discussion after all). We've seen SK mutual players he felt were useless (Danzaki etc.) and given he's not really needed by us currently, this makes most sense for his development and integration into the Scottish game. Like you say, he's got a 2-year deal; hopefully this helps him settle down and apply himself to be a part of the squad next year, or before if we recall him. I do wonder if this points to us extending Maswanhise? Kettlewell has a good record of developing strikers/getting the best out of them; however, that's been whilst playing them consistently and also giving them coaching. Stup was never going to get the former this season, given Robinson, Moses and Stama are in front of him in the pecking order. I'm not going to give up on him yet, but I can see some warning signs much like you.

Aye, I think it's probably best for him. He's behind Maswanhise, Tavares, Stama, Robinson, Moses and Watt in the pecking order. He'd basically just be training and not playing unless we have another mental run of injuries.