weeyin

As far as I know (which may be wrong), the club can't take any money from the Society. Only borrow it.

Someone who was at a Q&A can answer better than me - although I believe there are details published somewhere too. From memory, though, the loan was made ot the club and the club is supposed to service the loan. Once the loan is paid off, the Society buys the majority shareholding. I think there is provision in there for the Society to make up the shortfall if the club fails to make a full repayment, but nothing more.

The club is, I believe, servicing the loan.

True, but niche markets are exactly the markets a public service broadcaster is supposed to cover. (Plus, football would be pretty boring if you only ever heard about your own club).

Sounds like they'd be better reverting to the old approach of 30 minute highlights of one game and leave the rest to the internet sources.

Right, but I'll bet we can change the constitution if we want to. Problem is, there are few people with the time or the energy to explore how to do that, and then garner sufficient support. I do think there is a shortage of people willing. Not because they are lazy, but because it takes an enormous amount of time and commitment to do this kind of thing well.

I think Kerr is better than Cowdenbeath level.

All these things are easy to moan about, but will remain as-is unless people step up to change things. I understand not everyone likes to volunteer, but complaining only goes so far. If we truly believe the incumbents aren't up to the job we need to vote them out and replace them with people we think are more capable.

Remember when it was Sportsreel with Brian Marjoribanks (pronounced Marshbanks)?

Any kind of a win will do me while McGhee continues his player/tactics assessment.

No doubt someone can clear this up at the Q&A, but if one of the basic criteria is that we must have 2000 members by a given date, then presumably the Society is trying to create membership offers that help ensure we hit that basic target.

I have many criticisms of the Society over many different aspects, but if people can't see the benefits/merit of it they really haven't been paying attention. On multiple occasions, the Society has loaned the club funds to see them through traditionally low income periods of the season. These are funds that they cannot borrow from a bank and have kept the club afloat. Putting aside fan ownership, "buying the club" or whatever, one of the fundamental reasons for the Society was to be able to provide these interest-free loans.That alone is sufficient merit for me.

I think we used to enjoy Sportscene on a Saturday night (or Wednesday night) because we had no expectation of ever appearing on it. 90% of the the time it was OF vs A N Other. So there was never any disappointment at meager highlights - there just weren't any. Same with Scotsport on a Sunday afternoon.

The Alba coverage was great.

I certainly enjoy our Alba coverage much more than even a full 7 or 8 minutes on Sportscene.

To be fair, we had the full hour on Alba last night.

That's undoubtedly, true. However, a lot of those non-league sides are based in areas with much larger populations. The % of people from Motherwell who go to games is pretty much in line with other towns and cities. My local non-league team used to be Forest Green Rovers. Their cheapest season ticket this year is for the terracing - 280 quid for adults, 240 quid if you bought it before June 30th. It's a nice wee ground - holds about 5,000 - and a good day out, but definitely not cheap.

He was referring to steelboy who said none of our strikers would score five this season.

Bobby Watson always looks like he's from the 1950s, regardless of when his picture was taken. It must be the hair cut. Jumbo Muir, on the other hand, looks like an extra from The Hills Have Eyes.

Best of the rest?

Paul Tracey was the guy I was desperately trying to think of in the "Never made it" thread. He was supposed to be the next big thing and, from memory, made a few appearances in the first team when he was 16 or 17.

I know. I was just making a useless contribution to the "Fact" debate.

What if Kennedy is a better right back than Law, but more useful to the team in the centre of the defence?

As Ya Bezzer points out, he's hardly inactive in that position. I only mentioned he was irrelevant because Rooney is definitely offside.

Not really complaining, it's not an easy shout for the linesman as it was very tight and he couldn't be in line with the taker and Rooney at the same time. In general, I'm in favour of giving the benefit of the doubt to the attacker, and this time it worked against us. Just pleased we turned in a performance.