weeyin

Some interesting (and controversial) options discussed in today's Scotsman As for last night, I'm with fatcalf. If there is a fixed timeline for the creation of an expanded league then I could just about buy into that. Otherwise it will just be a sop to the fans and clubs that are demanding expansion and will never happen.

Boghead 47 here

5000 miles away is an even poorer argument. I have seen plenty of bad keepers at Fir Park - John Gardiner being the worst - and plenty of bad players in every other position. I have yelled abuse at some of them and laughed at others. The horror of Smith gesticulating at some mouthy fans doesn't even register on my outrage scale. Fans that can dish it out, but can't take it, makes me laugh though.

Poor argument. Even if it was true that his wages were funded 100% by the set of fans that yelled dog's abuse (which they were not), you'd have to be a precious wee petal to become so outraged at the minor retaliation.

You know it's not baseball season? Make sure you find a good bar for the Jets Steelers tonight!

Maybe in a thread not dedicated to transfer talk?

He's a big boy, he'll get over it.

Oh come on. It has given you another opportunity to come on here with your Victor Meldrew impression. How can that be disappointing for you?

We paid an undisclosed fee for Rosco too.

EEC? You've been out the country too long, my friend. It's the EU now. There are a few FIFA/UEFA rules that would fall foul of EU laws, but football has been granted some exceptions. I guess this must be one of them.

To be fair, we have been pretty astute at working our way through the loopholes of cross border transfers in the past few seasons, leaving more than a few English clubs ranting about how we ripped them off.

Because, the English FA at least, regards that as an exception to the rule. "An FA spokesman said: ‘Emergency loans don’t count when calculating the number of clubs a player has played for as he remains under contract to his parent club.’"

Whether that is true or not, the board has a long standing philosophy of not paying transfer fees. I can see the logic in that as it frees up more funds to pay wages. Guys like Skippy and Porter have been brought in this way and been very salable, as have players developed by our youth system. So it's difficult to argue against it's effectiveness.

"This rule dictates that a player can be registered with a maximum of three clubs during one season but can only play for two of them — with the sole exception of a move between clubs with overlapping seasons." Does the SPL starting before the EPL not count?

In a nutshell. The reason we have gone for managers who can bring in loans and frees from the English lower leagues is because any decent lower div player in Scotland usually requires a transfer fee.

What I meant was that even if the guy is similar to Murphy, that's hardly an issue.

We have a tiny squad. We could bring in 7 or 8 players and have enough room for them.

It's an AP article, but also made it into the New York Times

That is a story I have seen mentioned on here. I have seen said-same story debunked on here. Both from people 'in-the know'.

Have you not noticed? Every other post from Kmcalpin is about how we need a midfield full of hard-tackling bruisers with good engines

Maybe we don't want to sign him permanently until we see how he shapes up. Or maybe McCall has other targets in his sights for the summer transfer window and doesn't want to tie up funds at this stage of the season.

Intuitively, that makes sense. However, there are a finite number of people who will come to a Motherwell game on any given week, and history has shown that reducing the prices doesn't necessarily attract the necessary increase in crowd to make it worthwhile. I'm all for a drop in price, btw - but realise that it is a tricky balancing act. A more even distribution of revenue would doubtless help in funding such an initiative as the reliance on gate receipts would be reduced.

Indeed. Found these figures on the web: "A holy trinity comprising match-day revenue (€424m), sponsorship receipts (€573m) and broadcast income (€594m) is the main contributor to the Bundesliga's €1.7bn turnover." Over 1 billion EUR from sponsorships and broadcast rights.

Not ever, no.

If you think the Spanish National team is the death of football, I'm not sure you're qualified to comment on a solution to our woes