BrahimHemdani

I understand that, but it's a shambles right now. The current directors whoever is left, would still run it pro tem; but it can't be left to lurch from one crisis to another.

Frankie has asked me to send him the pictures for that purpose. If anyone wants to take over for the next one, they can feel free to post here.

The only real solution to to mess is to bring forward the next elections as soon as possible.

I believe I've suggested just that before.

If rumour has it, the Board the discuss then Blair decides.

It IS person specific, if you read the poll , members are not asked to vote on the principle they are asked to vote to re-appoint both persons at once, which is quite simply wrong.

And who would be to blame for that........

I'm convinced it's a mistake and simply wasn't thought through.

I disagree because if a person wants to vote YES to one and NO to the other they are forced to vote NO to both or YES to both.

Whilst they both resigned at the same time, they must have done so individually or if they didn't then it should have been taken as such. Directors aren't elected collectively so can't resign collectively even although they may do it at the same time; so shouldn't be re-appointed collectively. The question should have been asked in the case of each person separately.

I am uncomfortable with the Poll that has been sent out because it asks members to vote for both Laura and Joanne to be re-appointed to the Board, whereas some people may wish to vote for the appointment of one but not the other. The poll should have had separate boxes to tick or cross against each name not just a YES or NO to the general question; or a separate Poll for each person. I have emailed Club 1872 accordingly. This is a matter of principle and does not necessarily reflect my own personal views. It's just poor governance once again.

I'm miffed because as you appear to concede everyone except you seems to have been aware that the pictures were for publication (I had no other reason to take them) and it has left a bit of a sour taste to what was otherwise another good event IMO. I accept that it is your right not to have your image published but that could have been achieved without deleting the pictures entirely, so I'm not just miffed with you. I'll leave it at that as I have no wish to fall out with you or anyone else over this issue.

Thank you very much for that GS. I was fairly sure that I had gone beyond just asking permission to TAKE the pictures. That makes at least four people who had that understanding. That's why I don't understand BD's reaction.

Craig, as you know, I do value your opinion and advice but would have to say in this case that pictures of me are all over the place including the famous, or infamous depending on your view, one of me and Stewart Regan at Hampden. I don't think it's the pictures of me or anyone else that are the issue, people are targeted for their views and actions and I would reiterate that it was for that reason that I only posted the pseudonyms. Some people do seem to have got a kick out of putting faces to the stage names. I'll get waiver forms for folk to sign next time, if there is a next time. Don't take this comment as anything other than I'm a bit miffed at the moment but as I say I understand and appreciate your thoughts.

I decided to let this run this afternoon and see the outcome. I just want to reiterate that I posted the pictures in good faith believing that I had everyone's implied permission. I note that rbr had the "understanding they were going to be posted", plgsarmy agreed and Pete had the same impression as me, namely that "BD and everyone else was happy with it". I don't think it was necessary to remove the pictures completely as Frankie says BD's face could have been blanked out and that's what I would have done if I'd been asked. Once again I was happy to organise and glad all except boabie's feet enjoyed themselves.

I've been in touch with Bert Kassies and he has now updated the relevant section of his site (not because I asked I hasten to add), as follows: Since the Champions League title holder (Real Madrid or Juventus) already qualified for at least the play-off round of the Champions League, the Europa League title holder (Ajax or Manchester United) will gain access to the play-off round or the group stage of the Champions League, and leave an open spot in the access list. If Manchester United wins the Europa League then there will be an open spot in the Europa League group stage. If Ajax wins the Europa League then there will be only 8 teams in the 3rd qualifying round of the Champions League, which implies an open spot in the play-off round of the Europa League. In both cases the open spot will be taken by the cup winner of the 13th country on the ranking list (Czech Republic). The cup winner of the 18th country on the ranking list (Poland) has direct access to the 3rd qualifying round, and the cup winners of the 25th and 26th countries on the ranking list (Scotland and Azerbaijan) have direct access to the 2nd qualifying round of the Europa League. https://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/qual2017.html Aberdeen get this place if they win the Cup or if they finish 2nd in the League, because the Cup losers don't benefit.

If he really wanted to stay, he'd have signed a longer than 18 month contract last time.

And Miller made the crosses for the winners last two times out.

I agree with you but involving the 2nd, 3rd and 4th in the Championship adds interest to late season games and much needed revenue at the end.

Thanks that was my undertsanding or I wouldn't have posted the pictures. I would also reiterate that I deliberately did not quote actual names to protect everyone's anonymity, though I think most folk know me because I have posted pictures occasionally in the past. That said I'm more than happy to put one of those grey circles over BD's face if someone can tell me how to do it.

No you're not. I'm responsible as I posted the pictures. But I understood I had everyone's permission implied by the request for authority to take them if not explicitly granted. It would indeed be unfortunate if a good event became mired in controversy.

Two quick points. First is that there may not be shares available to purchase and I think they are building up funds in case of a rights issue. Secondly no one with a conflict of interest real or perceived should be on the Board it's as simple as that.

He'll rise to the occasion.

I respected anonymity by not posting real names.

. I respect your wishes but I think it must have been obvious why I was taking the pictures. I would add that apart from Frankie and Rousseau's "Thanks", another moderator, Pete, was there and has not raised an objection. I don't know how to blank a face but you're a Moderator so you can delete them if you so wish.