Beharder wrote:

10 would it be possible to stop questioning every move the club does or does not make. I personally don't give a #### about 1,2,5,6,7,8 or 9.Roll on the Saturday so we can talk about the team on the park.

So do we sit back relax and let certain people possibly bleed the club dry?

Nah.. questions have been needing answered and there still not being answered..
The Fed and Trust have been at this for weeks for the good of our club. If they let it lie where do we end up?

A few weeks back there were grim reports about Dundee's losses and money due to Colvin and the Yanks. Funsters of couse buried their heads in the sand and dismissed it all as lies.

Thats the difference between us and them (well one of them anyway); our fans ask questions on these matters and I for one are glad we do when you look at the messes they've got into over the years.

The Shed wrote:

bowers wrote:

The Shed wrote:

I believe that this statement has been done with good intentions, still think theres trouble ahead, next game we lose and some people will jump all over this.

100% released with good intentions.. The fans need to know all is not as rosy as alot seem to think and it needs sorted.
 

 
Dont doubt it at all mate, but think the reaction from others could be different, particularly if we dont win games.  Cant really see a scenario where everyone gets what they want out of this, hope there is tho.

 
All we all want is a happy ending to it all..  things need addressed and thats hopefully what what will happen sooner rather than later.

The Shed wrote:

TEK wrote:

8.Why was David Southern appointed?
 

 
This is the strange one for me, job was advertised and part of it was to run the clubs finances. Few months after his appointment we advertised for someone to run the clubs finances (cant remember the official job title).

Was Southern not capable of the job he was employed for?

This was all done before by those already there, so do we now have 3 people doing the job done by 1 previously?

Possibly things were being missed before due to lack of time/staff but it seems odd when the wage bill needs cut.

TBF to beharder Thompson can do what he likes, its his business, but it would be bad business to ignore a customer base of who many are clearly unhappy about the business model being utilised and the product being produced.

I believe that this statement has been done with good intentions, still think theres trouble ahead, next game we lose and some people will jump all over this.

Got to get back winning, and the fed etc can keep this going in the background without it causing ill feeling at games.

I asked the question knowing the answer tbh The Shed.

Southern was appointed because Thompson fully expected to be in Oz with a pina colada in his hand before the 14/15 season was out.

When he couldn't oust Tinkler from the Jets as expected and things went awry he had no option but to come back to Utd (in the short term anyway).

Trouble is we now have 2 people receiving (or 3 as you put it) the wage that was previously paid for by 1.

Who would have paid for mistakes like this?The fans of course.

Except Thompson knows his PR has never been lower amongst the support and if he went ahead with the planned st/gate increases sales could/would be catastrophic.


 

The Shed wrote:

TEK wrote:

8.Why was David Southern appointed?
 

 
This is the strange one for me, job was advertised and part of it was to run the clubs finances. Few months after his appointment we advertised for someone to run the clubs finances (cant remember the official job title).

Was Southern not capable of the job he was employed for?

This was all done before by those already there, so do we now have 3 people doing the job done by 1 previously?

Possibly things were being missed before due to lack of time/staff but it seems odd when the wage bill needs cut.

Having considered applying, the title was Finance Assistant and was basically purchase ledger/payroll clerk/clerkess. Certainly not running the club's finances so I didn't apply.
 

Arabnophobia wrote:

My question would be -

Why not just put all this to bed and shut doubters up with facts?

The answer might be, because unveiling how we negotiate big transfers might be weakened by publicising facts, fees, financial realities etc, but now the media is publicising the debate and infighting is it better kept private or public for the better of the club?

This was touched on tonight on Radio Scotland. The presenter was pushing that United should do just that - come out and put it to bed. Spencey and Wilson said that even if they wanted to, for legal reasons there's no way they could divulge exactly to whom the money has gone, and how much.

Anyway, I don't think the club has anything to explain here. If AT/Fed have any specific allegations to make they should present them with evidence. Otherwise, all the details we need to know will come out when the accounts are published.