Rev IM Jolly

I'd surprised if Man Utd wanted to publicise any details of individuals who may or may not be playing. If there are any possibilities of first team guys being involved I'd take it for read that Man Utd will be reserving that right incase of injuries etc and don't want to take risks. The closer it gets you'd have to think they will have fair idea if anyone of that stature will be involved, but will they make it known publically? I don't think so personally... EDIT: but I agree with fatcalf's sentiments. I'd say it'd be worth going along on the off chance if you have an interest in the game.

I didn't want to be the one to raise the subject on the thread, but I work next to one of Paul's neighbours and he says it was suicide; apparently he hung himself in his garage. Mods feel free to amend this if you wish for now, however I guess it's only a matter of time before this is confirmed publicly. Tragic tale.

Another shock to the system. Tragic news. Condolences to Paul's family and friends at a very difficult time.

Thank you very much David for answering my anxious query in a timely manner. I look forward to seeing if all will indeed be well. For Steve... Sorry it took over 3 hours to acknowledge it. I've got a job!

That's a pretty tight connection by Schipol's normal standards; I'd be surprised if it was worth your while mate. Depends on the runway you land on etc right enough; one of them feels like it's just about in Belgium it takes that long to taxi back to the terminal. Wish I could afford it/had the time off available... One time my gold card would've been useful!

Have PSL made any head-way with the Canterbury administrators re: the replica away kit? (I noted the earlier thread was promptly binned) Obviously there's a heck of a lot going on MFC-wise at the moment, but without wishing to upset anyone, we are almost only a matter of 3 weeks away from the SPL season opener. I'm assuming the publicity is being held back until there is confirmation that a replica will be available - which is fair enough - but we are going to see it sooner or later anyway. Just curious btw.

I didn't say their was. The poster I responded to suggested it was a farce that anyone playing in or spectating at European games would require a visa to travel to another country. Put simply, if the country that's hosting the game requires the visitors to have visa's they are simply going to have to get them as generally speaking countries aren't going to throw open their borders for footballing reasons! I put the non-EU membership thing in as an example as broadly speaking those are the countries who are going to encounter this problem, although not all of them will as I think there are perhaps one or two exceptions to that - Norway maybe? EDIT: That said I favour the old school approach that teams competing should at least be European in a geographical sense - Israel, Kazakhstan!?

Hopefully it will be sorted, but with yon rule about being in the country 24 hours prior to the match that only gives them until tomorrow night to get here, so at a guess they are going to have to be on a flight out of Albania perhaps by tonight at the latest? Obviously all if's and but's - and it will probably end up being much ado about nothing - but it might not be that straightforward. The UK embassy in Albania are going to have to sort this out for them in double quick time, they've got a fair number of people to get over here, and they've really only got a few hours, presumably.

Would anybody with half a brain and a shred of scruples really think any differently?

Is that not more of a comment on the fact that non-EU member countries (for example) are allowed to participate in UEFA competitions though? Countries aren't going to relax their immigration controls and invite in all and sundry purely for a game of fitba, are they? I think it's another apparent flaw in this quick fire setup they've created for these early rounds of the Europa League. A logistical nightmare for fans and clubs alike.

Based on the fact that he's signed two players who relatively speaking next to no Motherwell fans have seen play? Fair play, the guys will hopefully live up to their apparent billing, but it's a bit premature to be heralding these signings as getting one over the competition. It's early days in the new guys reign, I'm content to let him quietly go about his business without crawing too early about what we're gonna do and what Aberdeen are gonna do. We'll see how the two compare in terms of league finish. McGhee's obviously not made himself too popular in these parts, but the guy's still no mug and has a knack of getting the most out of his teams (at least for the first season). Being too cocky as a Motherwell fan doesn't sit easily with me. I'll be more than happy with a steady re-building job at the 'Ark; the new drains and a bit of grass were a good start!

If we got through, and with the game being reasonably close to the first league game in any case I'd like to think we'd alter that plan. That's assuming it wouldn't be particularly detrimental to the pitch to do so, and I'd have to guess it wouldn't be, considering it'll have been down a fair while by then.

Especially when the games on Thursday...

Sigma Olomouc put Kilmarnock out of Europe in the late 90's; a reasonably decent outfit from the Czech Republic. Fram Rekjavik are the others. I'd probably expect the Czech's to go through, although that's without checking the first leg result!

As I've previously said, I'm not into castigating the guy as he seems a decent sort and there is a very decent argument in that he's only earning his crust, but as I also ventured earlier, does he work for the Sun and was he given an assignment (which imo is completely fair enough as it's a rock and a hard place really) or did he indeed prepare this story as a freelance journalist and approach the Sun with it? I suspect it's possibly the latter going by posts from the last few months and as I said, if it were me I'd have gracefully declined the professional gain in that instance and choose not to go after the story; but we're all different.

Fine point, well made! But that's another issue and nothing to do with whether or not people are allowed to say they are morally opposed to something. For what it's worth I wouldn't be hanging the guy as he seems likes reasonably decent sort, but as I said I personally wouldn't have ran with it as I couldn't comfortably live with the conflict of interest (if he indeed did) but then I wouldn't be in the journalism game anyway for similar reasons.

If folk are against the story on a moral principle then it's up to them to say so, as it's also 'factually correct'. Can't have it both ways!

I can appreciate the sentiments of your recent posts Steve, I've often posted similar things myself on here in seasons gone by, but I'd say you're better to take this place with a very large pinch of salt rather than try to move too far to the view that no one should pass comment on anything ever unless they're the world's number one established authority on the blackness of kettles. Otherwise, there'd be nae point in ever having a forum for public discussion and the world would be a rather boring place. Regardless of how completely misplaced and unjust a lot of the garbage can be, I suppose we must accept that a forum like this needs speculation and debate and often what keeps it interesting to visit is the people who go too far with it.

He's a special case though. Personally speaking, if I'd been Scott I would have gone down the road of keeping my personal interests and my professional work entirely seperate, however from his posts on here in the past he's obviously chosen to try and get a bit of work in terms of sports reporting, so it would be a bit difficult to keep the two mutually exclusive. That said I still wouldn't have highlighted this story to the nation regardless of what positive slant I could have attempted to put on it, or indeed what professional gain was in it. However we don't know if he was asked to cover it or if he took it to them.

You could also ask how the story came to the attention of aforementioned editor in the first place, however I'm not going to judge without hearing the guys version of events. He may have highlighted the story with the best of intentions and given a very decent account of the full events which has been edited to suit the national's interests, however suffice to say it's wise to retain a cynisicm when dealing in the world of the modern media.

Is it not Scott_mfc?

To be fair Netherton, if you read Leanne's post re: the club's Friday statement then she's already acknowledged it to be a bit hasty and rash, but she has done us the courtesy of explaining the intention and rationale behind it. I don't think we can ask anymore after the event and to continue to air your rare criticism is really flogging a dead horse.

I'd personally rather see the club cut a bit of slack for a change as they are very much operating in unchartered terrority with such a trip, and you can also throw in the fact that it's also happening on an extremely tight schedule when compared to other European trips that ourselves and other teams have organised in recent years. With hindsight it's certainly been an error in judgement to proceed with the statement they did on Friday, but undeniably I think it was done with the best of intentions and at least it will act as another learning curve for all involved. As far as the charter v scheduled flight is concerned, I think it's purely down to the club to do what's right for the club on this one, given the circumstances.

I was surprised myself when I got to the end of MearnsWell's post and he hadn't mentioned the V word!

I quite agree that if these guys are 100% tied up on contracts then not publicising it would appear a bit pointless when, as you point out, the information is seemingly available from the other parties involved. However, where the media is involved and perhaps even other clubs, I'd rather hear it from the horses mouth before considering it concrete information. Could it be that discussions have taken place, and perhaps even contracts have been offered, but until the new guy is appointed to give his nod of approval then they won't be signed?