Kmcalpin

Great statement from the club. It would appear that Aberdeen have been underhand in all of this - not even informing MFC of their interest - a very basic courtesy. Are we due some compensation - even if its pennies I'd push for it. Lest all rally round now.

I haven't read the statetment on the Official Site yet (unable to load it) but I'm not concerned at Brown and Knox leaving. A gentlemans agreement was always a peculiar way of doing things and who knows what the details actually were. Without knowing the full facts of that I won't criticise either club or manager for the parting of the ways. What I am very disappointed in however is Craig Brown's public comments. He always appeared to be an avuncular figure - a lovable old gentleman but I was never fooled by that exterior - he's a shrewd operator. He has let the fans and the club down badly with his recent interviews and I'm sure the club isn't too happy about it either. To say what he did (praising the club & fans) prompting the club to put a message on the Official Site and then do a complete U turn is a very poor show. He'll leave us with a bitter taste in the mouth. All that said, he is 70 years old and was only ever going to be a short term stop gap to steady the ship. That being the case, presumably the club has been preparing for this day. If it hasn't then serious questions do need to be asked. I'm fairly sure though that the club will handle matters well.

Seconded.

Maybe you're being too quick to judge the club here. The "abuse" incident aside, no-one on this Board (as far as I'm aware) knows exactly what the root cause of the problem actually was. If, and it is an if, your comparison above is accurate then I smply can't believe that someone from the club hasn't done the same calculation and arrived at the same conclusion. I don't think we should back the club on any issue blindly but by the same token we shouldn't put the boot in without knowing the facts. Out of curiosity, if anyone knows precisely what the full story actually was please PM me and I'll keep it confidential.

Yes, but does that amount to serious abuse? Surely the club is allowed to say thats its too expensive? Customers do it all the time and take their business elsewhere. I don't think there's anything wrong in saying a product is too expensive. Surely there's more to this story than that?

Is it possible the club thought that?

Does anyone really think that Scott Leitch would have gone to Aberdeen as Number 2 if he'd been a shoe in for the top post at Fir Park?

The whole thing has been a storm in a tea cup and the manner in which it has been blown up is probably worse than the actual incident itself. Now I don't know exactly what went on but I don't condone abuse to someone doing their job - thats not on. Having worked in the public sector almost all of my career I have been involved in quite a few seemingly similar incidents in my time. In every case the offending party was dealt with privately. In no instances did any of it go public and if I'd commented to the press I'd have been taken to task. The usual response is that "an incident took place but that it is being addressed and the "organisation" doesn't comment on individual cases." I note the club has apologised - quite a contrast to Celtic's lack of apology for one of their employees abusing and threatening an SFA employee in full public view.

One thing is clear...someone ran to the press. I'm really surprised all this went public.

Really? I would be surprised if Scott Leitch returned anytime soon.

And they don't charge nightclubs and pubs hefty fees either.

Very valid point big yin. Had the roles been reversed and an official of the SFA come out with exactly the same tirade at a Celtic official would they have demanded the resignation of that official? Answers on a postcard please. Scottish football must move on but fo that to happen the SFA must address John Reids and Neil Lennons behaviour.

I don't think salt stocks will be an issue. It will be the number of gritters and drivers. NLC and indeed any local authority will not want to spend tens of millions on buying gritters which might only be used a few days in a year. In these days of austerity, spending cash on clearing roads around FP won't even be on their radar. The kind of choice they face, in crude terms, is spending thousands on clearing roads around FP on match days or sacking more staff.

Yes, game is off. Sensible decision.

Yes, season ticket holders, although I daresay other regulars could ask for tickets too.

My views on the SFA are well known, especially with regard to international football. However we've heard and read many rumours of who has said what, but what we haven't heard is the SFA's version of events. I really would like to hear that before forming opinions. I think your right Ian for some labour rights are more important than any football game and that is the motivating factor for some. Thats as may be. However I think MFC is largely, although not entirely an innocent party here and is being caught in an unfair crossfire. What does come thought for me is that its a very complex situation.

I haven't noticed this topic anywhere else so I thought I'd start a thread. Received a letter from Gordon Young this morning asking me to sell some raffle tickets in aid of youth development. A good idea in my book and I'll do my best to sell what I can. Has anyone else received this communication?

Am I alone in thinking some posters want this game called off because of the referee's dispute?

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to suss out what that implies. If the implication isn't true then its an unfortunate choice of words.

I think the key is in the first word. In fairness the posters say it is only a rumour and as such should be treated with extreme caution

I think the breadth and variety of posts on this thread prove that no-one knows whats going on. The referees still haven't said what they want, according to the SPL and obviously no one here knows either. The refs seem to have withdrawn their services for good reason but are offering no solution, none at all. Also, the instigators of this crisis in the main are Celtic FC but the refs are quite happy to hurt many innocent parties in the main. By acting like this they stand to lose much of the support they have. They also have to realise that they too must up their game to earn more respect.

I suspect it was down to the length of contract he was offered, if he was offered one. Also - a squad player at Fir Park as opposed to being a regular at Falkirk.

Hows Alan Martin doing at Leeds? He moved on becasue we wouldn't give him his first team chance.

Exactly. There are several angles to this debate with faults on both sides. No referee should be subject to abuse or threats and this is what Neil Lennon was up to lets be honest here. In committing these acts he was at best condoned by Celtic and at worst actively supported by Celtic. Death threats by fans are totally unacceptable. I have no problem with Celtic or any other club writing to the SFA, in private, to air concerns over conspiracies, providing they have hard evidence and Celtic have produced none - simply unfounded allegations. Contrary to what the redtops might print (or might not print) its Celtic and Celtic alone who have engineeered this crisis. For their part, referees have done themselves no favour over the years. Year in year out we've seen a catalogue of inconsistency and poor decision making. We all make the odd mistake and I can accept that. However, over the years there has been the odd bad egg, as there are in all occupations. Referees are no different to any other occupation in that respect. They have a duty to explain controversial decisions and to date to have failed to do so, hiding instead behind a cloak of secrecy and arrogance. Its high time video evidence was brought in to protect clubs, players, fans and yes referees.

Thats about it. The cash is split 3 ways. One third on costs, and one third each to the two teams. Don't forget though that gate income from season ticket holders (paid to Dundee months ago) will also be taken into account.