weeyin

I'm on your side here - I find it very annoying. I just doubt it's something we can change on our own.

Sounds like "the amateurs" running our club refused to be steamrollered by Celtic after all. (If you hear a chewing sound in the distance, it's the sound of 100 humble pies being devoured).

As I was saying...

Employers generally take a harder line on disclosure of confidential information than governments do. People only leak if there is some personal gain. Unless Hammell is looking for a creative way to be sacked, there's not much to be gained there. (Maybe the board has asked him to leak to push down our asking price, right enough. Clever stuff).

Why would Hammell be leaking confidential club info to Tam McManus?

The rumour I heard today was that Turnbull was murdered by ISIS last September and replaced by a Russian spy kid with a dodgy haircut.

It's the buying team that request fees be undisclosed. However, if you are a shareholder (or, I imagine, a 'Well Society member) you can get access to the accounts, and it's pretty easy to work out from that what transfer fees we receive.

An business man from Minnesota who made his money from oil and real-estate and owns the Sioux Falls Canaries baseball team and Sioux Falls Stampede ice hockey team.

When I was watching the play-offs, the commentator mentioned the Utd owners were willing to continue to bankroll a promotion push for another season. Didn't sound like very smart to me, but I suppose they must think the reward is worth the risk.

Unless the installments are £2.5 million now and £2.5 million in January, I agree. If they want to play silly buggers we should be charging them a premium for a player who has had zero injury issues since he was 8 years old.

I thought they boosted the season ticket sales by leaking all the "names" (like Benitez) for the managment vacancy and then giving it to Lennon.

Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, there was a tweet from a Celtic fan I read shortly after Celtic met our price. He said that something fishy must be happening because Celtic never pay the asking price for a Scottish player. Looks like he was spot on.

I don't think they need to scan you in Manchester to test for drugs. He could pee in a cup in Parkhead for that test.

To be fair, employment law in New York City means they can give you marching orders with zero notice if they decide they don't like the socks you're wearing. So much lower risk for employers.

Speak for yourself.

Not a player, but when Butcher and Malpas were together, I had always assumed that Butcher was the blood-and-thunder motivator, and Malpas was the man with the tactics (thanks to his years spent playing under Jim McLean, and his high standard of play at Utd). So when Malpas took over, I expected him to do OK.

It's almost like players need time to adapt to a new level when they make the step up. Arsene Wenger used to say it took a player 6 months to adapt to a different league that played at the same level. Maybe he knows what he's talking about.

Which takes my back to my original point that, given Turnbull was happy to stay another year at Fir Park, I think we should have taken the small risk his value would decrease and had the pleasure of getting another season out of him. That would have given value to the fans as well as the club, as the main point of developing young talent is to provide the first team with players we'd never be able to afford to buy. Selling that talent is obviously important, but secondary. The basis of any football club is, after all, to put the best team it can on the pitch every week.

His best league effort is 12 goals in one season. Most seasons he has been a mid to low single digits striker. What we need is a 15 - 20 goal striker. We got away with it when Turnbull was knocking in the goals, but that won't be happening next season.

I imagine Sloth was brought in with a view to replacing Turnbull. As Turnbull was the most accurate shooter in the SPFL last season (with the highest percentage of on target shots) and scored more goals from difficult positions than other player in the SPFL, there is zero chance anyone we bring in can replace that.

I'm getting pissed off at Turnbull now, and I like the guy.

Oxford pay more than us.

It's raining here, but probably have cleared up by early afternoon.

I would expect that the small increase in budget will be used to bring in additional players in our current wage structure, though, rather than fewer (but higher paid) players.

We will be adapting to our circumstances if we stick to the same model. Our circumstances being that we need to break even, service our debt to pay off Boyle and Hutchinson, renovate our pitch, maintain the stadium, and invest in the academy and its facilities (which from the Maurice Ross interview seems to be taking a financial hit this year) etc. If, at the end of next season we find we have more budget available once we take care of all of the above then maybe we can reconsider, but the last thing we need to be doing is splashing out extra cash on transfers and salaries for 2 or 3 year deals then incur an unexpected cost in 2020 that screws us over.