Kmcalpin

Great idea. One thing that does concern me more than anything just now is a split in our support due to the current investment situation. Most online posts are reasonable, but there are few which are adversarial in tone. Above all else we need to show a united front on the footballing side and get right behind the team, from the off, as in Saturday 6th.

The Society shouldn't be involved in such decisions. Leave that to the club.🤣

Was just about to post exactly that! An uninspiring M & S top. Great minds think alike.

Very good post, with which I agree 95% of the way. We have to be very careful though not to stray into political territory. The Society must avoid that at all costs. Once the Society starts getting involved in those kind of issues, it will start to alienate significant sections of its membership, many of who might terminate their association. Its a tricky one for sure. If it didn't take sides, then that would alienate some; if it did take sides then it would alienate others. Best not to go there in my view.

Yes I've dealt with Sally a few times and always found her helpful. However, I do think she needs someone else to help her

Yes, that has raised a few eyebrows.

I think there is some kind of middle ground here. I can see where Spiderpig, David and StAndrew7 are all coming from. The principle of the WS being run by volunteers is fine but, it does need to exert more strategic control over the club. This is entirely consistent with it being the major shareholder. To date its been far too passive, for various reasons. Thats not to say that it should run the club on a day to day basis. It shouldn't. Currently I think it employs 1 employee, full time or not I don't know. That perhaps needs to be increased slightly. Its simply too much for one person to handle.

Agreed StAndrew. Seems a good signing. Steelboy has been granted his wish for a big commanding central defender and to be fair he was right about rectifying that deficiency. All we need now is another keeper and left back. Maybe another striker if Theo moves on.

Has Matty Connelly re-signed then? The last I heard a few weeks ago, was that he had been made an offer but was yet to make his mind up.

Presumably we'll have nominated an outfield player as back up goalie, unless we have a trialist. Maybe Neil Alexander has been registered as temporary back up?

The lodging of the Wild Sheep proposal has brought many hitherto festering issues to the fore. Of immediate concern the Society's representation on the Executive Board. Its position as the major shareholder needs to be reflected in its composition, both in principle and in practice. In the medium, if not the shorter term, the Society Board needs to take a more proactive and assertive role in the running of the club at a strategic level, and that includes finances and investment, from whatever source. It cannot afford to simply say its nothing to do with us thats up to the club. That strategic role should not include day to day decision making or financial management. The appropriate medium for this would be 3 Society reps on the Executive Board. Again this merely reflects strategic direction from the major shareholder. The looming spectre of a financial mineshaft opening up in our back garden, courtesy of Jim McMahon, seems to have disappeared. However a decision needs to be taken by the Society as to its role, probably through consultation with members, and maybe via an amendment to the constitution. Should the club simply continue as is, or should it seek to modernise to retain our status and competitiveness with close rivals? A fundamental question for members I suspect. Santheman has just posted as I type. "I'm not for a minute expecting them to go knocking on doors but if the changes we want to see in the boardroom came about and the WS became the dominant force then seeking investment would surely be in their remit as Executive Directors." I agree 100% with that. The Society needs to start exerting itself, befitting its role as the major shareholder.

When we're speaking to a parent with a prospective Academy entrant I think that selling point might well leave them somewhat.....unimpressed. My point is that our competitors are upping their game.

Your comments are always realistic and worth considering San, and when you post, I sit up and take notice. We've read thousands of words on here and elsewhere expressing negative sentiments, and thats fine and just. Comments about what isn't acceptable and that in itself is very helpful but we must must now move the discussion on in a more positive vein. I'm hopeful that the Well Society's impending announcement will do exactly that. Yes, I think you're right, in that Society members may well have to dig deeper, and I don't think some will have a problem with that (there is a limit to this source though). However, I hope that the Society comes up with more, much more than that. Unless the vote is pulled, then the Society has to consider 2 scenarios in its strategic plan. The first being that the Wild Sheep proposal is deemed acceptable by stakeholders. The second being that its rejected and the Society, does its own thing, for the time being at least. Apart from the membership contributing more, if indeed thats whats advocated, I really hope that the Society's Plan focuses very heavily on community and local business involvement. In my eyes this is absolutely critical to investment. Half hearted attempts were made in the past to do this with very limited success. It will also have to be careful not to impinge on the club's contact with businesses; rather build on that and complement it. I'm hopeful that the Society will do the above given its recent attitudes survey. Its how it uses that information that will count. An absolute must in my view is for the Society to reinstate its own website and surely this should be done quickly and at relatively low cost given the number of experts in our support, many of whom would no doubt volunteer their services free of charge as they have generously done in the past. As a aside, for those who wish to preserve the club as it is, as opposed to conserving it, Kilmarnock have announced plans for a new upgraded Academy facility. That is what we'll be competing against.

You've hit the nail on the head Allan. That would be a win win situation. Time will tell if its achievable. We'll be in a better position once we see the Society's new strategic plan. Either that or a philanthropic white knight or lady and I can't see any riding towards us even with my telescope.

IF that were to be the case, presumably if I were to offer to gift or donate even a modest amount of privately held shares, to take its holding even very slightly over the 50.1% then that would be blocked by the Executive Board?

After a lot of thought, and wading through pages of questions and answers and jargon and other technical stuff that i don't fully understand, I'm of the opinion that this deal isn't for me. The latest iteration of the deal doesn't change much in my view. That said, I'm onboard with the reason for considering deal (but not this particular deal). Our club cannot stand still it has to move on just as the Scottish footballing world is moving on. Just to be clear, I'm not saying we should be trying to emulate the city clubs, such as Aberdeen, Hibs and Hearts; thats a pipedream. We have to adapt and update our business model just to retain our current status in the pecking order. Thats not to say that it hasn't been working. It has, but its faced increasing challenges. We'll always be a selling club fact. Its becoming increasingly difficult to retain budding young players from our Academy. In time that impacts on transfer fees received. Our Academy infrastructure needs updated to help attract and retain young talent as they eye better competing facilities elsewhere. Fir Park is ageing, and sentiment won't pay the maintenance bills. At a micro scale, the POD Stand badly needs upgrading and that won't come cheap. Its facilities are poor by today's standards. At a macro scale, we may one day need to move away from Fir Park. These are just examples as to why the status quo isn't an option. That then leaves us with the Society. Historically, and even recently it has adopted a laissez faire/hands off approach to the club's overall management. Even of late, it has taken a back seat to all the online shenanigans and online debate (I'm not for a minute suggesting that it should have been answering every post or tweet). It should have though, for example, issued a simple but short reply to the latest Barmack amendment. That passive approach can't continue. Its the club's main shareholder and owner and is being sidelined! It has to be more proactive and assertive. That is why its much awaited Strategic Plan has to deliver a bold, realistic but ultimately safer alternative to the Wild Sheep proposal. It also has to launch this well before the vote opens on 1 July to allow members time to digest the details, submit questions, and compare it to the Barmack scheme ( I do appreciate that hard work is going on behind the scenes). Edit. Just after I posted, I received the Society's response. Fair enough. Its embarrassing though that the Society has had to engage lawyers to pore over the latest proposal. Possibly different legal opinion to that engaged the Executive Board! You couldn't make it up.

So, what you're saying is that private shareholders could donate some or all of their shares to the Society?

It's been mentioned, rightly, that private shareholders could sell some or all of their shares to Erik Barmack or his associates. However, its also quite possible that they could sell or donate some or all their shares to the Society.

So you think the Club Board will listen to the fans? Little evidence of that currently. I suspect SK or Nick Dawes will have advised the directors of his market value.

That's what I'm assuming, although I'm not in the know. After my post earlier in the week, signings have been coming thick and fast. We're now very well stocked in midfield pehaps succession planning if Miller moves on. However, I reckon we're still short of a goalie, left back and a centre half. Maybe still one short up front if the Bair departs. English loan market won't come alive until August. Will Ewan Wilson make the step up this year?

On odd statement by the club. It didn't say anything new or reference any amended proposal, but rather explained a few aspects in more detail. I do accept though some of the financial "facts", such as the effect of freezing season ticket prices. There's always a danger with these matters that we throw the baby out with the bathwater. What strikes me though is the continuing disconnect between the 2 boards. In the reference to EB numbers surely it's up to the Society board to exert its will? Some very good work and excellent posts on P & B but I'm concerned by some posters' attitude towards those who support the Barmack's proposal. Everyone is entitled to their view which I might not agree with, but we shouldn't ridicule them.

On the money as always OTF.

Have I missed something or did Erik Barmack not suggest that he might tweak his proposal?

Its a wee bit concerning once again that we started pre season yesterday with so many squad vacancies and our our main striker away on international duty. Only 1 senior goalie, only 1 senior striker and no left back. Of course, its quite possible that we have players on trial or sigend but not yet announced. Concerning, but no reason whatever to panic. SK did say that he wanted to get business done early this year, but thats easier said than done. Still it does hamper our league cup preparation.

We're a bit short of goalies starting off pre season today. Maybe we have a trialist or someone lined up?