weeyin

To be fair, I think Gannon was hung out to dry for claiming (more than once) that Dallas didn't respond, when it appears that he did.

A 5 minute response has put this guy's gas at a peep and left us appearing to take the high ground; regardless of whether the club actually did anything that is claimed in their reply

There wasn't mindless violence at every game when you were allowed to drink. Just enough games to make it unworkable. Sadly, I just don't think that Scottish drinking habits have changed sufficiently for it to work, although the all-seated stadiums might have some positive impact. To be honest, though, I'd rather have terracing and a dry stadium than seats with a pint at half-time.

I think the point was that clubs like St. Mirren had the option to lay their pitch in the early spring thereby giving it more opportunity to grow and knit. We weren't afforded that luxury and had to undertake the work in the summer knowing that Autumn and Winter were fast approaching and likely to undermine the efforts in the short term. It's not clutching at straws in this instance. It's a prefectly valid comparison. If well established and normally decent grass surfaces are suffering from the unusually poor winter weather, what chance has new grass? Aye I bet you 500 quid we would. Now get in your time machine and prove me wrong, or pony up.

Is that not because we banned the booze, though?

Motherwell beat Rangers.

Without checking the dates (seeing as no googling allowed) maybe the Willies, Ormond and McLean?

True, but St. Mirren's had plenty of time to knit and bed in. They didn't have to rush it over a few weeks one summer.

Most players stall on contracts until they see what is on offer nearer the time. The difference with O'Brien is he is turning in some decent performances on the park in the meantime. A bit like Hately, Ruddy, Lukas etc.

Aye, but Accies had to do much the same - especially in their second half.

Aye, because if Derek Johnston handn't reminded him, his agent would likely have forgotten to mention it.

Man U vs Birmingham City

I think we will win for many of the same reasons. I can see Lord Mayor's show syndrome affecting them too and Broon will have us fired up after a poor showing the last time we played them. I also think they will be feeling the pressure a little more playing at home. What we don't want to do is let them score first.

What would be the point of all this cheating? Do the officials get a wee bit more in their wage packet when they make a bad call like that? Or do Ranger's supporting officials just get assigned to only Rangers games so they give them an advantage? What about the cheating Celtic officials? Do they have to cheat more now to try and stop the cheating Rangers officials' team from winning the league? What happens at an OF derby? Who decides which officials get to cheat?

I've probably paid less than any Motherwell fan on here to follow my team this season and it has to be Reynolds for me.

Incompetence is another explanation.

This is hardly the only country where the big teams get the big decisions. Every league in the world suffers from this. In fact, after we were relegated, we were the 'big' team in the First Division and received more than a few favourable decisions ourselves. If we did go down the video technology route, it should only be for very specific cases and I'd like to see it follow the American football approach i.e. the officials make the call on the field and it can only be changed if the video evidence shows irrefutable proof that the decision was wrong. If there is any doubt, then the decision on the pitch stands. The big problem is, of course, that games like American Football have far superior coverage with their multiple cameras. In situations like offside, unless the camera is exactly in line with the players in question, the angles can be easily skewed and make it difficult or impossible to get an accurate read.

The fact that you would have to prove that we would have won the game if we scored. The fact that we'd have to prove we didn't benefit from *any* questionable decisions in our favour during our league campaign. The fact that we'd have to prove other teams around us in the league were less penalised by questionable decisions. The fact that the SFA/SPL could just kick us out the league. The fact that it would cost us money that we don't possess. Just to name a few.

To be 'controversial' and increase the number of people that call in to his wee show.

Trouble is we are likely to end up with a plastic pitch in a plastic stadium.

He must be a pretty good radio presenter based on the reaction he gets on here. If was poor, nobody would bother talking about what he says.

Nah, he has suffered a small dip in form since the old board, but if he concentrates for a full thread he has proved himself a pretty useful poster.

That is a terrible analogy. It's more like, say, a striker sclaffing a shot every 15 or 20 attempts.

Cause: We spent more money than we had. Solution: Now we spend less money than we have. Simples.

That's also my concern about Brown which is why, although happy to see him here to the end of the season, I still need convincing he is the man to develop a squad for the future. Of course, I'll be delighted if he proves me wrong.