cambo97

FFS I've now agreed with MJC three times in row, but his comment is about Motherwell FC issuing a statement saying the fans hounding out the manager, giving the media the ecuse

There's a chance of the former but no chance of the latter.

That's the only bit I don't agree with; SK hasn't come out well with the MFC support but I suspect outside our "bubble" he's not lost anything.

While I don't disagree with what you're saying, Gannon got crucified in the media and on here for pointing out far more obvious wrongs, including when we won the game.

He probably wouldn't make it out the tunnel

That decision was nothing to do with VAR, they did their job and told the referee to reassess his decision; as it was a subjective decision they couldn't overturn it, just tell the ref he was an idiot and review it, which is what happened. VAR worked perfectly in this incident.

That's the first time I've watched any of them, Collum comes over pretty well, the only one of the conclusions I would argue with was the Celtic should have had a penalty; the argument was the attacker was ahead of the defender, I don't believe he was, the arm was minor. As an attacker (a long time ago) I would have been pissed I never got to the ball and scored, it would have been easier than falling over.

Not as difficult as a corporate manslaughter charge and damages. I'm being a bit extreme but if the stairs were as crowded as mentioned it wouldn't take much, a last minute winner or controversial goal against and injuries would be likely.

If Police Scotland have prevented the stewards from clearing the stairs, the club needs to get this on record. It will be MFC not the police that will be liable if anything happens

It's been pretty cool and wet the last few weeks

I watched an interview with him where he praises the Argentinian coach for rotating his players to keep them fresh and how that worked well in today's game.

The shareholder info I have from the club says that voting closes at 12.00 noon on 22nd July, the WS voting would appear to also finish on the 22nd, it doesn't give them much time to get their voting in. When it comes to the actual WS Shareholding vote is a straight majority of WS vote gets 100% of the shareholder vote. So it doesn't matter if the vote is 50.001 - 49.999% or 100-0% the shareholding vote would be the same?

I keep reading that the aim is for WSS to get 49% shareholding and the WS (are the initials deliberately similar?) get 51%, what happens will the not insubstantial 23%(?) in private hands?

I've just seen this on the Companies House website, perhaps someone with more knowledge could say what it means: Previously it was:

If they are only there as WS representatives (as majority shareholders), I would disagree, WS should be nominating their board members for the executive board. But thinking about it a bit more (if they are WS reps) then the resignations from the executive board should have been first as that is the actual board in which their position is untenable; technically the position on the WS board is not untenable it's just a personal disagreement with the other board members at least until the membership rejects the offer.