David

If the FA Cup final were being contested between a side like Manchester United, with their regular attendances, and a side like Chesterfield, Peterborough or Gillingham, who draw an average attendance similar to ours, do you think the ticket allocation would be split 50/50? Of course not. There's more "even-handedness" down south because the gulf in finances and sheer size between the top sides isn't anywhere near what it is in Scotland, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the top 10 or so Premiership clubs have far more sway than any clubs in League One. As far as I'm concerned Old Firm fans and the media could refer to both ends of Hampden as "their" end all they like, it makes not a bit of difference to us. Come Cup Final day it'll be the Motherwell end, because Rangers got papped out and are sitting at home watching on the telly.

Rangers end, Celtic end, who cares? What matters is that everyone in our end who wants a ticket will get one no problem, which can't be said for everyone who'd want to sit their arses in the "Celtic end."

Well, that's never going to happen. It's the nature of the game, so to speak, that the bigger clubs will always be given more say in how things go. It's not specific to Scottish football either. Do you think that smaller clubs down south have as much say as the top Premiership clubs? Of course not. Bottom line for me is this. If we took our full allocation we could fit close to three times our average attendance in Hampden for the final, while Celtic will have enough tickets for almost half of their season ticket holders alone. Whichever way you slice it up, we're the winners in this situation.

Burrows, much like our manager, has quickly learned how to play the game. There's absolutely nothing to be gained by coming out swinging at the opposition or the Governing body unless it's really needed, and now isn't one of those times. We've got enough tickets, and he also sorted out the hassle of Celtic fans sitting above Motherwell fans that caused grief last time. In short, it's job done. No point in him kicking up fuck for nothing.

As much as I'm not a fan of either man, I honestly believe that Neil Lennon is a better manager than Brenda. Played Celtic 4 times this season, with 2 draws, 1 defeat and 1 win. His record in Europe with Celtic pisses all over Rodgers, and faced more competition in his time there as well. He may not have the tan, the white smile (he's certainly not got that) and the smooth media personality, but along with Robinson he knows how to get a result against this lot. The game is winnable if we do what we do, and the officials don't fuck it up.

Never seen anything saying it only kicks in after we're safe from relegation, think it's purely on the number of games played. That makes sense though, as him playing in a certain number of games would mean that he's stayed fit, and that the manager has been picking him.

That's some good news then, that the contract extension automatically kicks in after so many games. If he does go we'll be due some sort of transfer fee, but hopefully he wants to stay.

I knew Griffiths was missing, but with Tierney also missing now is as good a time as any to get something from the game!

Unfortunately I don't see us getting much from this game. I reckon we'll see a stellar performance, but will lose by the odd goal or two, with a dubious officiating decision thrown in for good measure.

I'm guessing I'm the only tit who spent about 25 seconds trying to click on the play button on that photo?

There's always the chance that a cohesive dressing room like ours could be just what he needs, but I'm not sure I'd want to find out if it would work. Besides, there hasn't been anything to suggest he's coming here as far as I'm aware.

It's a topic that rears its head every now & then, but my view is that if a club is living within its means and there's a level of support there that allows it to do so, then why change things?

Personally I couldn't give a toss how "dirty" we are so long as we're sitting in a healthy league position and doing well off the field. I think we're doing as well as we have in quite some time just now, so if that's what we can do by being dirty, then keep it up lads!

On loan at Bury last I heard.

The first priority for me is always to finish above the relegation/play off places, and for now we're still sitting closer to the top six than the relegation zone so it's not panic stations yet. We've just lost one of our top players and someone who was responsible for a lot of our goals the past few years. It's always going to be tough to recover from that. We'll know a lot more when we've played Dundee at the end of February, and where we're sitting in the table at that point will likely dictate Robinson's position with the club.

Woke up this morning to see this statement, and have to say that I'm happy that the club have at least said their bit and not just remained silent in the face of all the shit that's being thrown at them. So, much respect to the club, and to Alan Burrows for taking that step. Even if fuck all comes of it, we've at least shown that we're not mugs and that we'll stand our ground.

Not press releases, that's just daft. But some key people at our club need to learn to be a bit cuter in how they use the media to get a message across. It'll come with experience I'm guessing.

If you think that saying nothing publicly and not questioning the ridiculous decisions out in the open is the way to go then fair enough, we'll need to agree to disagree. I guess time will tell. If we see closed doors chats using the proper channels actually seeing some sort of positive result then I'll happily hold my hands up.

Again, the vast majority of us are posting opinions on players, managers, chairmen, referees, owners and all sorts without "knowing them", aren't we? Like everyone else my views are drawn from what I've seen him do and say in his public, professional capacity. If me posting that opinion causes you a problem then simply scroll past and ignore, it's that simple.

I'm only going on what I've seen in the past when it comes to organisations like the SFA. Having fight in the confines of a private office is great, but as we've seen in the past, the SFA tend not to really do much unless they're under quite a bit of pressure. Public perception is what matters to them, which is why it took quite a shitstorm to finally force action from our authorities on the Rangers debacle. If that had been reserved to private chit chats in offices I doubt we'd have seen as much action taken. Also, if taking it to the private offices was the way to go, then surely Sir Brendan would have kept quiet about a lack of penalties and our physical play? Wouldn't he have been better served just requesting some time in a private setting to discuss it with the powers that be rather than provide quotes for the media? Not everyone. I personally think that the media pander to whatever will shift more copies of their paper each morning. It just so happens that coverage of the Glasgow two attracts more eyeballs, and more profit. Being as we were playing against one of the big clubs in question, it's safe to assume that any noise we'd made publicly about the refereeing decisions would have been given some coverage. We've been fucked over. Why not give the media something to write about, and put the authorities into a slightly more uncomfortable position? Again, I don't think it's strong for him to do that. I think, just like Burrows, he's relatively inexperienced in the position he's in. Nothing wrong with that, of course. Give him another five or ten years and he'll know how the game is played and how you get what you're looking for. He need look no further than his countryman in Glasgow the past few weeks to see how you play the game. The harsh truth is, the powers that be aren't going to look at our reaction and think "Gee, Motherwell were restrained and took the high road, didn't they? Let's look into their complaints and ensure they're given a fair shake in future since they played by the rules and were really nice." They're going to more than likely think "well, our refs fucked them over twice, for whatever reason! Thank fuck they aren't making it a bigger issue, we'll be able to slide by doing nothing about it, which is easier on us as we don't need to upset the main breadwinners in the process" Nah, like most of the population I've never actually been on the wrong end of a "tanking" mate. Not sure how wanting my club to voice their concerns over us being fucked over instead of giving it the "well, at least we got a point, and the players did really well to even get that, what a week we've had etc" is comparable with high street beat downs or whatever you're on about. My opinion is that unless we do what others do and complain, make noise and set up large fucking neon signs that point right at where the injustice we suffered is situated we're going to keep getting fucked over. That's life I'm afraid. The squeakiest wheel gets the oil and all that shite.

Here's the thing, for me the "correct channels" simply means that fuck all will happen. I seriously doubt that by going down the channels dictated by the very organisation we're complaining about that much will happen. Unfortunately, taking the high road doesn't seem to work with this lot. We can point and laugh at the likes of Lennon all we want when he flies into a rage about how his players are being tackled, but the truth is, that kind of behaviour works. Those who shout the loudest and all that. Put it this way, if you're at the head of that organisation and your receptionist buzzes you to tell you that you have a phone call from Neil Lennon, or Peter Lawwell after a dodgy couple of decisions against your side your reaction is going to be one of "christ, here we fucking go". I doubt a phone call from Alan Burrows elicits the same response, because he's known and regarded as a friendly, easy-going young guy. A credit to the game, all that jazz. Unfortunately, in situations like this you need someone who's a bit of a cunt and who's going to make life difficult for those in power, be it directly or through the media.

I'm obviously talking about his professional qualities, aren't I? I'm not meaning that he runs from a square go offering outside a pub, or that he doesn't like arguing with his wife.

Are we only allowed to pass comment if we know the guy personally?

Wasn't last night Celtic's first penalty in league play this season? Not that I don't think that Rodgers well timed comments in the media about a lack of penalties and our physical play hasn't played a part in all of this lately, but it's not as if Celtic get penalties every week.

I actually like Burrows, and think he's doing a great job, but as has been mentioned, he's not the type to confront and fight. He just doesn't seem to have that in him, unfortunately.