Peterhead game

[grantzer]

It was mentioned during the second half of the commentary on the BBC Scotland channel that Peterhead play good football in League 1 but have difficulty scoring goals.
A club of our standing should have been dominating last night’s game and restricting Peterhead to a few breakaways not the other way round.

We won 3-0. Pretty dominant.....

[islaydarkblue]

We won 3-0. Pretty dominant.....

Perhaps so but we could easily have gone in at halftime losing 2-1.
The stonewall penalty that Peterhead should have been awarded and the Peterhead shot that struck the inside of the Dundee goalpost which then spun across the face of our goal before miraculously missing the far post and going out for a goal kick.
It was almost as if the Hand of God was keeping that shot from going in.
Even when we were leading 2-0 I was concerned that if Peterhead scored our defence would start panicking.
In my opinion it was only comfortable viewing after Josh Mulligan scored our third goal.

[BP33]

Perhaps so but we could easily have gone in at halftime losing 2-1.
The stonewall penalty that Peterhead should have been awarded and the Peterhead shot that struck the inside of the Dundee goalpost which then spun across the face of our goal before miraculously missing the far post and going out for a goal kick.
It was almost as if the Hand of God was keeping that shot from going in.
Even when we were leading 2-0 I was concerned that if Peterhead scored our defence would start panicking.
In my opinion it was only comfortable viewing after Josh Mulligan scored our third goal.

We won 3 nil, but you keep moaning about everything and everyone. I believe you’re on the DFCSS committee, and folk wonder why JN wants nothing to do with that organisation.

[BCram]

We won 3 nil, but you keep moaning about everything and everyone. I believe you’re on the DFCSS committee, and folk wonder why JN wants nothing to do with that organisation.

I don't think personal relationships should be entering into the way the club and DFCSS should be working together. Both organisations want what is best for DFC. I'll admit that is based on a couple of assumptions. The first one is that making DFC a top club is actually what our American owners want, and the second one is that the members and board of DFCSS want to help our American owners because the American owners to make DFC a top club.

Sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe in and perhaps that message not be universally popular. The fans disagree all the time about players, managers etc. But at the bottom of it all everyone wants what is best for DFC.

I think it would be a big help for our American owners if they were to honour their commitment to accept a member of DFCSS onto the club board. My opinion only.

[BCram]

We won 3 nil, but you keep moaning about everything and everyone. I believe you’re on the DFCSS committee, and folk wonder why JN wants nothing to do with that organisation.

I don't think personal relationships should be entering into the way the club and DFCSS should be working together. Both organisations want what is best for DFC. I'll admit that is based on a couple of assumptions. The first one is that making DFC a top club is actually what our American owners want, and the second one is that the members and board of DFCSS want to help our American owners because the American owners to make DFC a top club.

Sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe in and perhaps that message will not be universally popular. The fans disagree all the time about players, managers etc. But at the bottom of it all everyone wants what is best for DFC.

I think it would be a big help for our American owners if they were to honour their commitment to accept a member of DFCSS onto the club board. My opinion only.

[islaydarkblue]

I don't think personal relationships should be entering into the way the club and DFCSS should be working together. Both organisations want what is best for DFC. I'll admit that is based on a couple of assumptions. The first one is that making DFC a top club is actually what our American owners want, and the second one is that the members and board of DFCSS want to help our American owners because the American owners to make DFC a top club.

Sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe in and perhaps that message not be universally popular. The fans disagree all the time about players, managers etc. But at the bottom of it all everyone wants what is best for DFC.

I think it would be a big help for our American owners if they were to honour their commitment to accept a member of DFCSS onto the club board. My opinion only.

Thank you for your post.
Under the entrenched rights of the A shares which are listed in rules 79-82 of the Dundee Football Club Limited Articles of Association DFCSS are entitled to have both a Primary and Secondary representative on the board of directors of Dundee Football Club Limited.
However since Bob Hynd resigned as a director of DFCSS and the DFCSS Secondary representative DFCSS have had no representatives on the Dundee Football Club Limited board of directors.

[islaydarkblue]

We won 3 nil, but you keep moaning about everything and everyone. I believe you’re on the DFCSS committee, and folk wonder why JN wants nothing to do with that organisation.

I thought that free speech was still permitted throughout the UK including Scotland which means that I am as entitled as the next person to give my own opinion.
I will give you some food for thought.
You may remember that FPS tried in January 2019 to purchase all the A shares held by DFCSS for the derisory sum of £8,000 subsequently increased to £10,000. Fortunately the DFCSS members voted against this offer.
FPS said that their £8,000 offer was an excellent deal as all the Ordinary and A shares held by DFCSS was valued in their Annual Accounts at £1.
Prior to the DFCSS AGM held on 19th December 2020 I insisted that the true value of all the Ordinary and A shares held by the society
should be stated in the Annual Accounts with the shares being valued at 1.35p each which is the same price per share that FPS use when they out their ‘debt for equity’ share transactions.
I enclose the DFCSS annual accounts for the year ending 31st May 2020 which are freely available to read on the DFCSS website under Downloads and Minutes. I suggest that you look at Page 10 where you will read that all the Ordinary and A shares held by DFCSS are valued at £550,785. https://www.dee4life.com/files/16104...s31May2020.pdf
The 15.475.294 A shares alone are valued at £208,916 somewhat more than the original £8,000 offered by FPS.