Bluedell

Because it is against the Companies Act?

The reasons why they resigned are becoming clearer. I believe every director of the club is liable to a fine if the AGM is not held within 6 months.

Adhering to the Companies Act doesn't look to be a priority for the current board of directors. No wonder McClelland and Greig resigned. It's becoming a bit clearer.

Try this. http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/newsite/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=31

I think it is relevant. OF fans make up around 50% of fans who attend senior football, and if the survey response from them is minimal then it is not representative of the people who attend games.

The survery comes across as having an agenda. A question on league size but there is only a follow-up question on increasing the size. A question on sharing TV revenue but only follow-up questions on sharing the revenue more equally.

I asked the same question at the O'Connor incident and nobody was able to explain why. I still can't figure out how a yellow card offence if seen by a ref during a game results in a 2 match ban if missed by the ref and caught on TV.

I agree with Danny on the notifications. I'm not convinced by the new icons. It makes it look as if every post has been agreed. Also, I'm not sure on the agree/disagree. When it was thanks, you could use it when some made a good post or had put a lot of effort into, say, a match review. I may want to thank them but don't want to agree with them.

I didn't think that Aluko faded or gave the ball away much.

if Lennon wants to have his games before ours then I'm happy if Celtic's games get scheduled for a Saturday at 12.30 after a UEFA Cup game on a Thursday night if he is.

I wasn't that impressed with him on Saturday. I liked the look of him a lot more when I saw him playing wide in a previous game.

Bump. If anyone is interested in one of these, they are still be sold for £65 + p&p. Would make an unusual Christmas pressie. :smile: If you are interested please PM me.

So if a director disagrees with the decisions of the majority of the board he should resign? is that what you would do? Unrealistic and an easy option. Much better to try and fight your corner and try and persuade them to make the right decision next time.

Edu was one of our top 2 players today.

The payments to the Employment Trust had gone on for many years before Paul Murray joined the board so I fail to see why he should take any responsibility for that. As for him being part of the previous regime, perhaps he opposed every bad decision that the board made but was overruled? Saying that, his comments are not helpful to the club and are primarily for his own ego and he should learn to be quiet.

There's always a degree of flexibility when it comes to accounting matters and they may well be slightly worse than they could have made it, but I doubt that it would be material.

A non-story. There is no question that that the auditors will sign an audit report on the accounts.

Doesn't show in turnover.

As I said, it was enough to keep him out of a few games at Villa. Also, if his move was signed and sealed, would he really have gone to watch the games against Kaunus and Falkirk?

He was injured. It was the same injury that kept him out after his transfer went through.

Typo. Should be £3.5m.

A reasonable argument, but if some or all had come off, where is the cash to pay for them? Smith admitted that they changed the Goodwillie deal, making it worse for Dundee Utd. Who's to say that a similar tactic wasn't used in the other bids? It was Whyte's people that came out and said that we would be spending £5m a year and some of the £25m may be front loaded and gave hints at £15m. You can't blame people for being sceptical when the net spend turns out to be closer to £1.3m (or whatever it was). If you're buying a quoted company, you and your advisers generally don't make errors like that. It's similar to the inaccuracy contained in yesterday's statement. Perhaps it's just another "error" but in my fairly limited experience, the words of public statements are poured over until everyone is happy with them. I find it hard to believe that genuine errors are contained within them, particularly when they are there to correct a previous omission.

I thought I'd answered that?

I believe that he did leave for our benefit. The club were telling people that he didn't have an escape clause in his contract, we get knocked out the CL with no midfield and suddenly one appears. I believe that we asked him to leave, and the fact that he did resulted in us winning the league. If he hadn't, there'd be no 3IAR.

Thinking about your good question further, Kaunus and the spending took place in Jul/Aug 2008 and the bank moved into the club in early 2009, as far as I'm aware. It could be that the net spending of the players was what pushed the bank over the edge which resulted in them sending their people into the club and the subsequent appointment of Donald Muir.