Just a reminder that the club have called a meeting tonight at Bayview. 7pm start.

will it be the meeting that will bring a future to the club or just another coverup?.
Cannot make it myself but will be looking out for news.

I guess Ringo forgot to post during the meeting to prove he's not actually a director of the club then. Shame that.

Mixed feelings about tonight.

Positives: good turnout from the supporters. I liked the idea of an under board formed of reps from youth, ladies, trust, supporters club etc.

No details of the deal but that's understandable since it is not yet done. No details on the debt, but this will have to come out eventually as will details on how it will be tackled. This is going to be a real challenge. Given that revenue is not enough to fund what we see on the pitch at the moment what will we see once the costs are cut further.

I was confused - does the deal need supporter's funding? Does the debt need supporter's donations. There were conflicting statements - gaurantees given of no default and no administration ...... Yet other statements that suggested supporters may need to invest to save the club.

If the deal doesn't require supporter backing why not do a share issue so the supporter's money goes to the club rather than speed up payment to the owner. Seems a safer and more attractive option. It may require a share issue - will the directors take the brave step and dilute their 52%. Something to consider.

I have no doubt that the directors will do all they can to avoid a default on their deal and to avoid the club going into administration (After all they themselves will incur financial loss). But to guarantee it as an impossibility - a very bold statement indeed.

Nobody took me up on the offer.

I wish the directors well in their venture which is still very much lacking in propr detail, confidentiality, responsibility to shareholders etc. The upcoming AGM will address part of the issue in the financial state of the club, but only to 31 May, I fear the current debt is far worse.

What worries me is the admission that the Gang of 4 have not taken into account the debt in the negotiations with the majority shareholders. When I asked why not the answer was why aye?

Another worry is the lack of a cohesive plan to tackle the debt other than the usual, we need more fans, volunteers etc. No dynamic plans or ideas were unveiled from the guys in charge.

As NC said it is a very bold statement to say they guarantee that the club will not enter administration. As admitted last night the £150K from the 2012 Rangers cup game was all used up in the Winter of 12/13 when games were postponed. If yhat were to happen this winter with the club heavily in debt how would we survive?

I really hope this works but what I heard at the meeting does not give me confidence t hese guys are the right people for the job.

I'm still struggling with the £150K from the Rangers game. That's what - a 40-50% "bonus" of additional unplanned revenue. Does that really get eaten up with a few postponed games? Perhaps it does but I'd need to see the details to be convinced. Doesn't add up for me yet. If I had nothing to show for a 50% bonus on my salary I'd be asking myself serious questions!!

If the gang of 4 are looking for investment, the Rangers money question will need further explanation.

I'd also want to see all the ts & Cs of their deal and a detailed plan of exactly how the debt will be tackled. Opening this up for scrutiny would be a fantastic gesture and a big move to getting the supporters on board.

Fans obviously want to "pull together" and "support the club"......but people are not daft and will want to know exactly what it is they are being asked to sign up to.

We're talking about a 1 time investment from supporters - then it has to be the right investment - there are no second chances.

So not really much forward in the situation of knowing what is actually the situation -- debt and viability ?.

How many games were postponed? Could not have been anymore than four as far as I can remember? Was our budget really set up to lose £37,500 a game unless we had 450 punters paying in at an average of about £9?

Would that not mean we were set up to lose over £30,000 a game even if the game went ahead?

It is widely reported that Rankine advised East Fife on putting the rangers money into a bond.

It is also reported that Rankine advised lolly to invest 40K in Livingston. Do we know when the 40K loan to Livingston occurred?

There is a reason why the debt has not been taken into account. It is the same reason why the directors can guarantee that there will be no default. The same reason that so few details are forthcoming.

The reason is that the deal is not real. Just like Sid's deal was not real, and Lee's deal was not real. No need to negotiate over debt. And you can't default on a deal that doesn't exist. Guaranteed.

Ring a ding has probably got it right.

AS I can gather from what has been said and more importantly what is not being said, this deal is financial madness. Are the directors really going to buy an indebted club for 380k? How are they raising this money, money which could be used to help the club's debt and help put it on a sound financial footing. No real information coming from the meeting and would some of the money needed be required to come from loans which would further sink the club into more debt.

There is no way the fans should support this deal unless much more is forthcoming including a financial plan on running the club and how the money is to be raised and repaid if necessary. By boycotting the deal it will give the directors an out if they need one.

What would Rankine want out of this situation?................

Perhaps...?
A way of appearing to distance himself and M/s Twigg from East Fife without losing the ability to `cash in` on `their` investment in the future. If it was a simple objective of getting out he could have `advised` Twigg to sell to Lee or the current board before , or as, the shit hit the fan with the SFA.

What would the `Gang of 4 want out of the situation?.................

Perhaps ...?
A way of holding onto the blazer without any significant investment and having to relinquish power and (perhaps)expose to any other potential buyer what a financial mess they have overseen in recent years.As directors they have had a legal responsibility to ALL shareholders. Would a sale to a 3rd party result in the financial dirty washing getting aired on the line?

How might this be achieved?
Perhaps.............?
A holding company with A & B shares that keeps control with Rankine / Twigg
A `loan` ( maybe from the £150k Rangers money?) to existing directors to `pay` a non refundable deposit to appear as if they are actually buying something.-`Stick to the line that the monies gone guys and you can use it to pay your deposit and perhaps the first instalment(s)`
A `side deal` , completed at a later date, to sell Rankine/Twigg the land around New Bayview ( if you like a similar, but much smaller deal, to the Mike Ashley/Charles Green £1 deal)

What would the fans want out of this situation?

Almost certainly..........

A well run, sustainable and transparent club living within its means with a strong and experienced commercially focussed board/management team who invest back into the club and the local community any profits earned without any hidden gain or benefits for themselves.

Sorry guys the first two scenarios are completely incompatible with the last and its an insult to the intelligence of the fans , and the many employees and volunteers at East Fife for the `Gang of 4 ` to pretend otherwise.

Not a `Board hater` - Its just that this deal absolutely stinks and could lead to the end for our club.

ps For the record not convinced a fans owned business would work also, but I am prepared to have my mind changed on that.

Today's Courier article on the meeting chose to focus on a rallying call for Supporters to get behind the club. And quoted in full Jim Stevenson's statement - including his claim that if you ask east fife supporters for help you get told to jump off a bridge. I'd be interested to understand more why Jim thinks this is the case. I felt those in the room had overall goodwill towards them.

Having had time to peculate Monday's meeting mutterings, my personal goodwill to the gang of 4 is still in tact, but so is my scepticism on their ability to succeed. What actually ARE the plans to take the club forward? What is this deal and what involvement is sought from supporters? What is the plan to tackle the debt? Seems all very high level and conceptual at this stage rather than a detailed and well considered solid plan. That's OK, but at some point (certainly before supporters part with money) details and substance will be required. Hopefully this will come....soon. I fear that the initial goodwill will fade quickly if progress (or the believe of progress) is not forthcoming.

I'm also not sure what the point in the rallying call was. Everyone in the room is already coming to games. The others need a reason to come back - a winning team, a belief in the direction the club is going in. It's up to the gang of 4 to provide this - that's the position they have put themselves in. If they fail to deliver then the accountability and responsibility will be theirs and theirs alone - not the supporters and not the former supporters they failed to entice back.

Perhaps the rallying call is really for supporters to get behind that gang of 4. OK, but there is still many questions to be answered and details to be shared before this backing will come. Supporters back their club without question and from the heart - supporters back boards with the heads.....and their wallets......or not as the case may prove to be.

Its all about ambition to be honest.
Its common knowledge the gang of 4 are quite happy languishing in the lowest depths of Scottish football. it costs too much money to go up and stay up.

Bit of a catch 22 really and the main reason why a lot of fans simply gave up and walked away, myself being one of them.

Club is fucked if you want my honest opinion. Going nowhere fast.
Unless another sugar daddy like Wullie Gray comes along then this is where we`ll be staying.
Lee Murray talked a good game but that's easy to do when your full of shit and playing with other peoples money.

I thought everyone had seen through Willie Gray by now! All talk, no dosh.

On the wider issue I suspect the current Board have been allowed to stay in place because they represent four fairly safe pairs of hands who won't let the club go under, even if it means we languish in the Second Division. Everyone faces a real dilemma here. The club's resources and level of support don't match the ambition of the remaining supporters. It is going to be hard enough to keep the club afloat, far less grow and develop. Lee Murray simply didn't know enough about football to understand that. The Twiggs probably don't want to gamble again and lose. So we have the gang of four until someone with money appears through the mist and takes the club out of the hands of the Twiggs. Until then we are where we are.

The difference between Gray and Murray is significant.
Gray delivered and gave us the best 3 years in over 2 decades.
Murray talked shite and got us relegated

I`d have Gray back at the club in a heartbeat. Love him or loathe him he certainly raised interest in the club.

Hanging Bat has got it pretty much right. There is no point to East Fife simply being a bottom tier club playing to 400 diehards with the occasional foray into the 3rd tier. That would be a waste of everyone's time. Without ambition, a progressive plan to move us forward and crucially, an injection of funds to help realise these plans, then we will slowly die a death.

I wish I had some confidence that the 'takeover' could reverse our fortunes by sadly I just don't feel that anything will change.

As much as I like to disagree with you, I'm struggling to.



Do cowden have more resources that us? Perhaps a lower cost base. Dumbarton, Brechin, Forfar, Stranraer - do these guys have more resources?

Maybe it all stems back to the deal done when Danskin's shares were up for grabs. Instead of getting someone who was interested in taking the club forward we got someone looking to make a profit.

A "safe pair of hands" to see us through a period of several years at the bottom of this division is as much a death sentence as short term administration and liquidation I'm afraid. We're haemorrhaging fans at the moment, and have absolutely no chance of attracting new ones whilst we battle it out for 8th place with Montrose. We'd be better of just winding the current club up and starting again in the Fife juniors, at least then we'd get some excitement and the feeling we were moving forward again.

Don't think any teams content to languish in the bottom league cos there is the chance that they might disappear off the face of the earth into the Lowland League.

Look how Queens Park have upped their game this season. They were content to soak up 2 sell out games against Rangers and take money from SFA in rent and still languish in the bottom tier but not this year.

So there we have it. Confirmation (from someone who knows) that the club is remaining in the ownership of the Twigg shareholding despite the illusion of a bid, the four directors are just the latest caretakers, and if there is ever a real buyer it will be someone else. Until then we are where we are.

Well Grant at least the board members put their names to the public and bid their money. Do you ever say anything positive, or is your negative mind filled with "what ifs". What if my Auntie was my uncle she would have "balls" Something obviously lacking in people willing to try to bring down people whether you like them or not trying to do the best for the club. They've said they can service the debt and that no investment from buying shares by supporters would be used in that.
What if you fu**ed of and supported one of the other clubs you always use in trying to rubbish others efforts would you be missed.

I think your auntie probably was your uncle, Martin. But it hasn't affected you too much, considering. Still, I feel for you

To be clear, I have nothing personal against any of the 4 directors. And I honestly believe they are trying to do the best for the club. I am not trying to bring them down......this will or won't happen regardless of anything I say or do.



They went further than this. Jim stated that the debt would be paid off much quicker than 5 years and that he guaranteed that the club will not go into administration. That statement might be enough for some folk, but I'd need to understand exactly what the debt management plan is before I'm convinced. If you were a creditor - would that explanation wash with you?


Would I be missed - No, of course not!

I'm not trying to rubbish people's efforts - I'm putting them under scrutiny - is that really a bad thing? These guys have put themselves in the position of running the club. We all WANT them to do well .... but can't blind ourselves to the fact that if they fail, then it could very well be the end of East Fife all together.

If you feel I'm focusing too much on the negative then please counter it by highlighting the positives. Maybe I am overlooking them.

Oh and Martin, The "investment" from supporters. Where would you like to see it go?

1) Paying off the debt
2) Paying Lolly ...../ meeting the annual payment due by the Gang of 4
3) Into the club

(Trick question - option 3 is not on the table).