DFCSS rears its ugly head again

[Taintedice]

End of the day I don't care who holds the A shares as long as it's not the club owners at any time, in order that that the rights are protected, or I can see us being at Tannadice as either lodgers or worse.

It has to be the ultimate irony that in order to seal their position after admin 2, DFCSS made an agreement with John Bennett for his support in exchange for a 100% rise in the rent for Dens, which is the major reason why it's no longer affordable. Couldn't mark your neck with the proverbial blowtorch. Anyway, if a rogue owner came along, it would be the rank and file who would stop moves to Tannadice, not a bunch of puffed-up, self-indulgent, arrogant hypocrites like you and yours.

[Taintedice]

No, I'm saying there's serious doubt as to the existence of the minute.

I'm a season ticket holder of many seasons and a member of DFCSS and have been on the board; sorry to pi55 on your bonfire.

Why did you lie about being a member of DFCSS on the other thread, or did you rejoin after I called you out on not being a member but still wanting an opinion

And what minute are you on about? Tim Keyes wanted some shares from DFCSS, 2 years later, they said no. That's about it, really.

[Taintedice]

Access to the IP was agreed via a formal and binding contract.

Continual or conditional? Who were the parties to the contract when the 30/70 was decided? When was it signed? Did FPS agree to this then renege? If so, DFCSS should have been compensated for costs they'd incurred. Unfortunately, just another casualty in the long-running feud started by DFCSS.

[Deeranged]

It has to be the ultimate irony that in order to seal their position after admin 2, DFCSS made an agreement with John Bennett for his support in exchange for a 100% rise in the rent for Dens, which is the major reason why it's no longer affordable. Couldn't mark your neck with the proverbial blowtorch. Anyway, if a rogue owner came along, it would be the rank and file who would stop moves to Tannadice, not a bunch of puffed-up, self-indulgent, arrogant hypocrites like you and yours.

Sorry, but if you're just going to insult people maybe it's time you stepped out of the discussion?

[Returnofrros]

For me we need a strong supporters' organisation numbers wise with strong board level leadership that will protect the entrenched rights. DSA will never be that organisation (without significant strengthening at the top) so DFCSS is the only option at the moment. They have a strong board but it's not one that will ever be accepted by FPS and hey suffer from very low membership partly because the brand carries historic barriers for many supporters. That leaves the options you've outlined in your second paragraph but again my own opinion is irrelevant.

End of the day I don't care who holds the A shares as long as it's not the club owners at any time, in order that that the rights are protected, or I can see us being at Tannadice as either lodgers or worse.

For the record being at Tannadice or involved with that lot in any way, manner or form would end my association with DFC completely.

Why is your opinion "irrelevant"?

Very relevant if your a member and ex office bearer although could understand if you didn't want to give your opinion but not irrelevant.

I've been harping on about the dangers of a move to tannadice for months now.

[BCram]

DFCSS were the legalised version of Dee4Life, which was just a sort of campaign group, with a bank account, as far as I can say, could be wrong on the details. DFCSS were originally registered in 2004 and from that point on, their main aim was to secure fans representation on the board of DFC, which they secured in 2008. Their intention was to make sure Dundee FC never risked the same happening as admin 1. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, they decided they'd rather be in charge of the whole thing so sat back and did nothing when Melville showed up. They got their chance in 2010 when admin 2 was announced. As for Forbes and McDonald (DFCSS) agreeing the FPS investment, I think you've had too much of the special juice cults give to their members.

As for the club statement, how could 2 parties who have nothing but antipathy towards each other agree on anything? You either believe the statement from FPS or you believe DFCSS. I don't like Nelms any more than I do DFCSS, but it's obvious Tim Keyes would have been involved at some point, perhaps he asked DFCSS for help with some shares. DFCSS are obviously still dedicated to taking control of the club so selling shares is a tricky one for them. They could have just said no at the time (2 years ago, not the date in dfcss minutes, another lie). FPS and DFCSS are mortal enemies, who do you want to win? For me, DFCSS has to go

Just to clear up one point. DFCSS made a democratic decision taken by the members. You may well be right that Forbes and McDonald voted against the proposal, and argued against it but my point was not that they agreed with it, it was that the organisation deserves credit for making the decision to involve FPS. There is more to DFCSS than just the two people you mention. If you move on from that thought you might see that a good working relationship between FPS and DFCSS is desirable.

[Taintedice]

Sorry, but if you're just going to insult people maybe it's time you stepped out of the discussion?

It's my thread ye tube Good to see you're talking to me now, well done on finding that wee bit of maturity.

[BCram]

It has to be the ultimate irony that in order to seal their position after admin 2, DFCSS made an agreement with John Bennett for his support in exchange for a 100% rise in the rent for Dens, which is the major reason why it's no longer affordable. Couldn't mark your neck with the proverbial blowtorch. Anyway, if a rogue owner came along, it would be the rank and file who would stop moves to Tannadice, not a bunch of puffed-up, self-indulgent, arrogant hypocrites like you and yours.

Was not aware of this fact. What would have happened if they had not made the decision they did?

[Taintedice]

Just to clear up one point. DFCSS made a democratic decision taken by the members. You may well be right that Forbes and McDonald voted against the proposal, and argued against it but my point was not that they agreed with it, it was that the organisation deserves credit for making the decision to involve FPS. There is more to DFCSS than just the two people you mention. If you move on from that thought you might see that a good working relationship between FPS and DFCSS is desirable.

DFCSS did everything they could to stop anyone from even hearing about FPS, especially the 4000 members they claimed to have. It was the like of Steve Martin who brought FPS to the table. Look, I fully understand that DFCSS does what it is meant to do, just like a wild animal savaging a sheep does what it's meant to do, same thing. So can I stop hearing that DFCSS does what its members tell it and the board of directors have never ever done anything other than that, that really is boring. And stop living in a bubble, FPS and DFCSS are never going to reconcile ffs

[Taintedice]

Was not aware of this fact. What would have happened if they had not made the decision they did?

Decision? Dirty backroom deal, you mean?