weeyin

The terrible idea was what clubs had to do to continue to receive funding, and the way it excluded others. It's not a terrible idea to develop youngsters as much as possible - which is what we're doing here. Screwing over a key component to our survival as a club would not have made sense at any level. We can still keep pushing for change.

As a part owner of the club, I want Hampden to be be full. I'd prefer Motherwell fans, but if Motherwell fans can't fill our allocation, then I'm not fussed if it's Celtic fans or neutrals that make up the numbers. I don't get the hate for people "there for the occasion". It would be one thing if they were taking tickets away from the hard core support, but it looks like there will be enough to accommodate all parties concerned.

Guys like Bigi, Frear, Tanner (and I'm assuming Petravičius) can certainly play it on the deck. I think we'd have more success with that than a hapless long ball game. I don't think there's a defence in the SPFL that can't handle aimless punts into the box. There's no defence that likes guys with the ball at their feet and running at them. Not to say they should all be in the starting line up. We need be using our high pressing game from the get-go. But if all we do with our possession is pump it high and long, we might as well not bother showing up.

If we played Bowman up top we'll just resort to pumping long balls up to him. I don't think that's the way to take on this Celtic team.

So what made Gahagan a great? And what made Gary McAllister not a great?

Aye, I was thinking the same about Gahagan. He wasn't even the best player in the team at time, never mind best post war.

Accies are in because they helped set the entrance criteria.

What made that game worse was how crap both teams were and yet one will be going to the World Cup. Time to reduce the number of teams again and make the finals for the good teams. (and yes, I know that makes it even less likely we will qualify).

I think the team we need to match Aberdeen will need to be a wee bit different from our Cup Final team to match Celtic.

The fact that a team like Rangers can refuse to participate in the U20s development league, but still be one of the clubs selected just shows what a farce this whole thing is. But like others have said, I'm glad we are one of the 8.

According to their Facebook page, they are all sold out too, but might still be available from The Ballroom Sports Bar.

I can only imagine the busmageddon that will ensue if by some chance we win.

Totally agree. High pressing is our best chance in this one. However, it's going to be interesting to see how both teams line up for the subsequent 2 games as I expect those to be played differently.

Good to see Tanner staking a claim. Hope he makes the most of it.

Sure it is just up to 5 per person, regardless of whether you are a Society Member, a Season Ticket Holder or both.

It's the same situation as usual. Every 'Well fan who wants a ticket will get one. In all the years I have been going to Fir Park, I have never heard of anyone missing out on a game because they couldn't get a ticket.

I'd much rather be us without a Cup in the last 10 years than St Mirren now.

We have a couple of insiders in the media, though - in the press and on the radio. Which is more than many of the "smaller" teams.

I know I'm incredibly biased, but it seems to me the SFA and the Compliance Officers were spot on with every single decision for this game. Vincent Lunny's explanations of the process were excellent too. A shame they don't provide commentary like that for all the hearings as it really clarified what does and doesn't get reviewed - and why.

Big Mick will also be pleased he doesn't have to be running up and down the Hampden stairs again.

One game ban (and one suspended) to take effect immediately for this weekend's Ross County match.

I understand the motivation behind the idea. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, though, there is no need for us to rush and pay Les back. We have a very favourable interest rate (0%), and a creditor that isn't exactly pressuring us for our installments. It's literally free money that we can leverage for the good of the club. I'd still choose low risk over no risk though. In a previous work-life, I saw the results of numerous once-in-a-lifetime events kill some business stone dead. The overall number that went to the wall was small, but they were all completely wiped out. Years ago, I attended some finance training, and the speaker was talking about how smart people often make stupid decisions when they have money. His classic example was mortgages. This was in the US where mortgage rates are fixed for the duration of the loan, and the interest you pay on them is 100% tax deductible. People that would come into money (typically from an inheritance) would often rush to pay off their mortgage of 3 or 4% interest. Not only were they losing that tax break every year, but if they invested the money in a safe fund, they would be getting a return of 5 or 6%. But because it felt good to pay off their home loan, they were costing themselves tens of thousands of dollars (or more) in the long run. We just need to make sure that what we do in the short term here, however good it feels, isn't costing us in the long run.

Nice work!

The point is that we could sell shares at zero risk. So why introduce any, however small? I have no idea what the club's finances will be like in 30 years, but I'd want the Society to still be the majority owner.

We'll certainly need to be better than we were in the first half of the semi. We do have a tiny advantage in that we haven't played them yet, so they haven't had a chance to work us out first hand.