Kmcalpin

A point and the squad leaving Dingwall in one piece will do me.

County will pose a serious physical challenge - they're no shrinking violets. However we're due some serious good luck after the Inverness debacle and I'll happily take being played off the park and winning 2-0.

This for me and a few others is the main point of confusion. Others are confused over highly complex legal and financial issues but for me this is a basic point. I'm not sure what the 400 comprises. Is it: A) 400 members who are paying up their subscriptions monthly? B) 400 members who are paying up their subscriptions monthly and members who are renewing by monthly instalments C) 400 members who have pledged a monthly sum over and above membership D) 400 members comprising a combination of the above.

I attended for most of the meeting and was a bit surprised that Brian MacCafferty didn't say more. However, Jim McMahon was the only one present who was closely involved in the legalities and mechanics of setting up the Society and so it was no surprise to me that he was the one who answered all the legal/procedural/technical questions. He didn't come across arrogant to me at all. That said, I was surprised that there was no definition of active members and yes perhaps there should be. However in the great scheme of things I doubt if its a major issue to be honest. Some good answers from the panel some poor answers from the panel but nothing gave me huge concern. The issue which does need clarifying though is the one about subscriptions/renewals/monthly payments. One questioner said that he'd stopped paying his annual renewal because of concerns but on the basis of answers provided last night he was now going to renew. So yes it was a mixed session. I wouldn't want those who didn't attend however to get the impression that everyone thought it was a shambles they most certainly didn't.

Why? Is it because you're opposed to fan ownership/would prefer one owner with a personal and clear vision/don't think the Well Society has competent enough individuals to run the club/don't think £1 is a realistic price.

It depends on the purpose and nature of the question. If its quite complex or detailed and its to trick or catch out the panel then yes, you're right - the least warning they can get the better. However if its to elicit an informed, comprehensive and helpful reply then its best to give advanced notice.

I don't know if that is a universal view. Certainly its not my recollection of events at all.

Yes, just received voting forms too but not involved.

If the interest in the Society shown on these forums is replicated throughout our support as a whole then the attendance at tonight's meeting should be pretty healthy. Looking forward to it.

Josh Law may be improving offensively but defensively he's not really come on much and he is 26. We don't all agree that Chalmers won't improve and its presumptious to write that. He hasn't had the best of starts with us but at 21 he has much more time to improve; whether Mark McGhee agrees or not is another matter. Stevie Hammell may be a short term solution but I doubt if he'll still be with us next season. Given his injury record now I just wonder how many more games he'll play for us.

Is it possible to add a translation facility to the site? I'm struggling a bit myself to understand some of the language at times.

Not getting at you mate but how do you know? Have you access to the before and after recruitment figures? Just curious.

Absolutely. For example the defending at Vigurs' goal was criminal. There was no-one in a position to close him down, let along tackle him. Had he been harried or hassled and put under pressure would he still have scored?

Spot on Al as we said at the game. Overall, it was just one of those days and no matter what team Inverness put out, or what we did they were always going to win - call it fatalism if you like. A frustrating game that you get once or twice a season. There wasn't much between the sides and whilst we were better on the ball they were much superior off it. Not a great performance from us but not that bad. Early good fortune in various guises for Inverness completely turned the course of the game. To their credit they worked far harder than us whilst we were in possession and had the capability of using 2 men to close down our player in possession in virtually any area of the pitch. I felt a bit sorry for Moult and Macdonald as its doubtful if they received more than 2 balls ahead of them all game - the constantly had to come short with 2 brutes of defenders wrestling with them from behind - just not their game. For whatever reason Peraon did not play his usual game of running up and down to support the strikers. All that said, we did play some decent stuff at times and it isn't easy when faced with 5 or even 7 defenders. Just a pity Dom Thomas wasn't on the bench - the second half was made for him. I thought too Louis Laing might have been brought on later on - if we're going to rely on lumping high balls into the box against towering defenders then he's your man to ruffle them up. A series of controversial incidents turned the game. The penalty - never one in a million years. I'm surprised that Thompson even saw it amongst the welter of bodies. There was a fair bit of jostling with the ball bouncing around and eventually it hit McManus on the arm. The penalty retake - nothing short of ludicrous. You see this week in week out with no action taken and then on Saturday.... Its like foul throws - you see 100 per season with perhaps one being randomly punished per year or the police pulling up the 73rd car in a line of 382 travelling at the same speed for speeding. By half time I feared that we'd receive a red card but didn't know who the recipient would be - it could have been anyone; as it turned out the unlucky "benefactor" was McManus. I agree entirely with Milo here. McManus' first card was absurd - it was a perfectly good well timed tackle with his boot on the ground connecting with the ball. His second one, right in front of us was shocking. A tussle at worst with the objectionable Lopez play acting. The linesman put his flag up and that was that. As Catweazles RP commented he shot off PDQ at the end to the jeers of the fans. I felt so sorry for McManus. The game would have turned out very different had the penalty not been given; the retake had not been given; Storey's shot had not taken a wicked deflection; and Lopez been red carded for a shocking tackle on Johnson or his lashing out at Grimshaw off the ball. All if and buts though. Vigurs' once a season strike was a great finish but how awful was our defending of the corner?

I thought Law had a "Hammellesque" game yesterday. Good on the ball but poor off it. At times his positional play caused us problems.

A hard physical clash in prospect today and hopefully no afters from the first game in Inverness. Feelings ran high that day.

I've little time for Chic Young Andy, but your statement above could be true of many Scots sports journos. Its simply taboo to upset, in any way, the Old Firm as was. To do so is to risk losing customers. They are still in the pockets of Celtic and Sevco - you only need to read sycophantic media accounts of the latter's latest tax case and financial loss.

Given that the North Sea Oil industry is in decline and laying off many trained and experienced personnel is that wise?

Good post Jacol. Whats as frustrating for me is the nonsense thats spouted on Radio Scotland Sportsound. When I recently heard score updates from La Liga that summed it up for me. All too often its reminiscent of some half cut mates having a laugh and boozy discussion in a pub about their pet subjects, with the listener left feeling like an unwelcome eavesdropper. Poor poor show from the BBC.

A good presentation - well done. I don't pretend to follow everything in it but you've obviously put a lot of thought and effort into it. It deserves serious consideration.

The restructuring seems a bit odd. Our ladies won what is effectively a 3rd tier league very comfortably and therefore you'd expect them to be promoted to the 2nd tier - right? However if there is a new SWPL 1 and SWPL 2 above them then they'll still be in the 3rd tier by my reckoning. It sounds just like a typical SPFL restructuring! A bit unfair I'd say.

I appreciate quite a few folk have concerns and unanswered questions about the Society - I have some myself. If Denny has some unanswered questions then he is quite entitled and indeed right to raise that as an issue. Overall though I agree with Weeyin - its easy to criticise but not so easy to volunteer - I quite appreciate that not everyone has the time or skills to help out. If members are seriously concerned about the running of the Society then they should call for an EGM - I'm sure that they could garner sufficient support for that. I hope though that everyone's questions are addressed at the meeting - the Society's communications have not been great so far and its time they improved.

I get it that you have an axe to grind with the Society; so be it. However, do you have any evidence that the organisers are deliberately trying to stifle and subdue discussion? Its quite possible that in order to make the event more attractive, a Q & A session with Mark McGhee has been added on. To be blunt I don't envy the Chairman's job on the night. There may well be more questions than the time available permits and some may have to lose out. In that event I'd imagine questions that have been submitted/asked by several people may be chosen. In my view, if there is insufficient time to take all questions then questioners should be limited to one question each, with "multiple" questions being ruled out of order. Verbal questions should also be kept short and be real questions and not an opportunity for the more articulate questioner to make a speech and play to the gallery. Again the Chairman runs the risk of being criticised by sceptical fans of ignoring awkward questions. I sincerely hope that there is time for every question to be asked including all of yours, but don't be surprised or offended if there isn't. However, in my experience if someone looks for something they will always find it. I agree though that a fair number of questions need to be asked.

Absolutely. Yes he'll have his preferred way of setting up the team but probably recognises he'll have to gradually introduce that as and when his choice of new players arrive.

Scottish football coverage is abysmal on many levels and Andy covers that well further up. It is however easy to use the off switch, although publicly funded BBC coverage is perhaps a slightly different point. Sky/Virgin/BT coverage - unsubscribe or don't subscribe end of. Very costly and dismissive of the Scottish game.