stuwell

Don't know but I'm assuming he is. As for what he say's, it's just echoing what alot of folk on here have been saying - only he's said it a bit more politly

Reading the statement there seems to be a word missing: “We regard the sustainability of the club and the integrity of the sport as inter-linked. BUT We have a duty to act in the interests of our club and we hope these can be reconciled with the interests of the game. It looks to me that any decision will be taken with cash in mind, maybe once we hear how much sky is willing to pay then the club will make a decision.

losing my job, losing my house, losing a family member or losing a good mate could make me inconsolable but James McFadden joining celtic wouldn't bother me - the guy's got to make a living while he can.

"Champions League Simplified...." If the SFA don't get their finger out this thread could be right simple - we could be kicked out before we even get to kick a ball!

from a report on the stv website "....Aidan O'Neill QC, for the SFA, said the tribunal had sought to find a punishment or sanction which would fit the breach. He added: "They did not want to be in a situation of giving a sanction which is not effective and not dissuasive or a disproportionate sanction which is suspension or expulsion." He told the court it was understood within the sport that a ban preventing the registration of new players was a sanction.Mr O’Neill added: "We don't want a clunky reading of these rules which means either we have a useless sanction or a nuclear option. That is just nonsensical." He argued that the tribunal had properly applied its mind to come up with what it considered to an effective and proportionate outcome. "This club brought the game into disrepute because it did not pay its taxes, among other things," he said......" I hope that if they win the case on the grounds that the punishment isn't a recognised punishment that the SFA then say "ok we have looked at it again to find a sanction which is within the rules and guess what - your expelled!"

aye but on about three other fridays they have hoped to have buyers by the following monday!

Yes but I believe that when setting out the budget, they would have looked at the reserves, looked at a worst case senario and then set the budget accordingly. ie if the worst case senario was six weeks without gate reciepts and we only have X in reserve then the budget - for players and backroom staff - would have to be X/6 and as such I still believe that the more people signing up then the more we have in reserve and with that the player budget could be increased.

Although the £335,000 raised so far is a teriffic achievement, the fact that we're having to trim the players budget by £4000 per week - equal to £208,000 over the year - shows that much more is needed to keep the club going at its present level. From memory I think that the initial target was in the region of inexcess of £700,000 (£250,000 was the absolute minimum required to get the society up and running) and I believe this shortfall could be part of the reason for the cut in the budget. So once again I'd like to urge anyone who can afford it, to think seriously about joining.

100% correct maplewell, Saunders return has made Clancy excess to requirements. Even with Craigan retiring we are still pretty well covered at the back with the young guys coming through who all aquited themselves well when required during the last season. Having said that, I do think the Clancy is a good player and I wish him all the best (except against us) As others have said its midfield and up front that we need to be concentrating on.

stoater of a strip - is there one in the shop window?

The crowd at the StJ game was pretty poor but from whereI was sitting the biggest disappointment was the lack of StJ fans in the away stand - I'm sure they announced around 480 - and for a club chasing europe that was really poor. Yes we could have added an extra few fans but I was expecting 1000+ StJ fans.

Although its not on the agenda I'd imagine that it will be discussed so that rangers can tell bill miller how the SPL will react to a newco.

aye but if both are voted on tomorrow then once the voting structure is changed there would be no going back on it.

There is something that the ten chairmen could do and that is say they will make their decision after the vote to change the existing voting structure - if rangers vote for the status quo then the other chairmen should vote not to allow a rangers newco entry into the SPL. If rangers are not willing to vote for a faired league, then screw them. The ten chairmen must be able to prove that they have gotten something which changes the league (and Scottish football) for the better out of this sorry episode - and I don't believe a fairer split of tv money will be enough - or I fear many fans will walk away.

Is there any chavs in motherwell? - plenty o wee neds but I don't think there's many chavs

Jay, not aimed at you personally, more towards those saying that even a faired league wont be enough to allow them to return - everyday in life people have to make compromises and I'm just trying to figure out why some folk are unwilling to accept a compromise on this.

one thing I don't understand is people saying that rangers (and celtic) have screwed every scottish club for years - something that 99.999999% of us already know - and that if thing don't change they won't be back at Fir Park next season on priciple - why the fuck have you been putting up with it going up to now? Also, if the leagues rules change, the league becomes fairer and every other non OF club is in a better position to challenge the OF, why stop going on principle now when you were happy to go when it was unfair?

Is there any circumstance which any of you would accept that allowed a newco straight into the SPL? eg would folk be happy if the voting system changed, tv money was more evenly split, gate reciepts were split 75% - 25% and newco were to have points deducted for 1,2 or 3 seasons? Personally, if newco walking into the SPL without any changes, I'd walk away but if at least the 1st three of the above were met and possibly a 1 year points deduction, then if I thought the scottish game would be more competetive and fair I'd stay.

With celtic a stick on to win the league, as it stands just now post split the focus should be on making sure that both us and rangers play 19 home games each to ensure fair play in the battle for 2nd. No team has a divine right to play 19 home games so if need be, celtic should lose a home game before we do - I hope this point has been noted by our board and the SPL informed!

A very easy solution to Celtics threat of only doing the bare minimum in terms of working with sky is to vote through the changes and then vote through an amendment to the bare minimum in regards to the sky deal covering whatever celtic are refusing to do with heavy fines for any club deemed acting as obstructive to the benefit of scottish football. Problem solved, celtic (&rangers) put in their place

someone at the club must have really pissed you off in the past - you pour scorn on everything they do

I cringed yesterday when he went down, worst dive I've seen in a while and a deserved booking. Hope we don't see him doing it again as I hate to see strikers take a dive, its the one thing I hated about McDonald. PS were nowhere near being close to securing 3rd.

good shout mate might stick a tenner on that myself.

Expect Hibs to go for it straight from kick off and try to put us on the back foot. An early goal from either team could be on the cards and set up a great game.

i think that the talk of the stands being sold out is because the club is assuming that every season ticket voucher will be used and that every voucher handed out on the night will be redeemed for a ticket so they've have put aside seats for this but I'm not sure if everyone expected to turn up actually will - although I hope they do!