cambo97

Viewpark is more Bellshill than Glasgow, unless you count Tannochside, Uddingston, Bargeddie and Coatbridge as part of the Glasgow conurbation. Which then adds in Motherwell and Hamilton

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.

I may be wrong but I thought Feely and Dickie were only on the board as WS nominated representatives, if this is the case, after their resignations from the WS board, surely their continued seat on the executive board is also untenable and they should also resign from that.

Putting on my "weeyin" pedantry hat, it's actually 2.1% (really 1 share higher than 2%).

It's never been that but even if it was there is still going to be the shoulder or big toe offside, just starting at a different datum point. But I agree with going back a few moves is wrong, if the referee played on then that should be it. Similar looking at possible offenses from corners when there is probably 4 or 5 all happening, some by attackers and some by defenders.

Just found the original email from 2017, it was £10 each with a minimum buy of 5.

What was the society board's decision at the time of executive board meeting, all I've read suggests that the society board vote was after the executive vote; therefore at that time, as StAndrew7 (I think, apologies if it wasn't) pointed out, it could be reasonably stated that they did enact this wishes of the membership who said they would consider an offer reducing the WS stake. And they now have that opportunity to reject or accept.

Technically it was only the personal opinion of the representatives as they didn't/don't know the opinions of the "thousands of Motherwell fans " at that time. Although I suspect the board split is similar to the overall split of the thousands of Motherwell fans

He's been injured for a while and I suspect he has been "trying his hand' at coaching and shown enough to get a coaching role. Maybe he's the one who has progressed Theo Bair and that's why he has been given the role but I don't expect that some posters will accept that as a possibility.

But he was a hybrid of both so not really comparable. If he had played against Odense we would have won be 3 or 4 as he was an expert at coming late in at the back post, and we had numerous similar chances in that game. Jamie Murphy is another who is was a worse striker than Bair or Vale and a not as good as Spittal, Miller and Slattery as a midfielder but still overall better than all of them.

Do we though? Aberdeen on the last day, and Livingston for a top 6 may say otherwise. Adding in beating the old Rangers then late goal against Hibs to avoid relegation. 6-1 against Newco.