steelboy

even if it's the same people it will no doubt legally be a different entity with holding companies registered all over the place.

it's good to see that the society is working hard to keep fan ownership alive. i realise that brian the other board members are in a difficult position at the moment but it's very frustrating not knowing who will be responsible for making a huge decision about the future of the club.

the club repaid boyle around £500,000 over 5 years without issue so i think this could be budgeted for. the money we have lost over the past few years is effectively the money we have lost out on because of 5 missing visits from rangers, reduced league sponsorship because of rangers and reduced tv income again because of rangers. hopefully hearts and rangers are promoted and we will be in a far better position next season.

good find. i can't understand how anyone would rather hand over the club lock, stock and barrel to an unknown group who seem to have a poor past record of running clubs and are fronted by solano who is a bankrupt than try and run the club on our own terms.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/sep/26/sepp-blatter-fifa-ban-third-party-ownership that scenario popped into my head because i read the above article a while ago but it seems more like years than months to get rid of third party ownership and everything blatter says is untrustworthy anyway. potentially becoming a foreign owned club which exists to showcase south american players is a pretty radical step, it would be nice to know who would decide if this goes through.

Airdrie went bust within 12 months of Archibald leaving. Most of the players ended up at Livi.

Could either someone from the club or society answer these questions please.... Who exactly decides whether or not to accept a bid for Boyle's shareholding? What happens to the potential proceeds from the sale of those shares to an outside consortium?

Or a Romanov type money laundering venture. Anyone who thinks they can make money owning MFC must have an ulterior motive.

Surely he is too wee to be a goalie?

Josh law's header for a corner was a point to Kenny black. A sub that paid off.

you can turn on your tv 7 days a week and see much better players than iain vigurs who have no problems working hard defensively and staying switched on for 90 minutes. last night in the first half he wandered all over the park leaving craig reid exposed and we were lucky not to lose a goal because of it. second half he was much better, someone obviously had a word with him at half time. the only reason he doesn't work hard is because he can't arsed.

he's 31 FFS!

he's a big mean, machine. he definitely isn't slacking off in training. voted lasley because of the improvement against his recent performances but reid did well despite being hung out to dry in the first half and ainsworth looked 100% committed which you don't see very often.

the united full back should have scored with the two headers in the second half and whoever it was that went through before half time should have scored and they had us on the ropes for a while at the end. in saying that we could have easily had 4 goals of our own. did anyone see wee dan pick the ball up after ramsden passed it back to him after tracking the offside runner? i was surprised the united fans didn't claim for it.

up until tonight lasley looked ready for the knackers yard and then he pulls a performance out like that. it's welcome but puzzling. we rode our luck but it was good to see a bit of fight and determination from the players and especially good to see a competitive, hard fought game for the first time in 6 months.

i think it will be ramsden at left back and o'brien in the centre.

We might finally have found Josh a position!

Kenny black is one of the men who pioneered the 4-6-0 so we could be in for a wee surprise.

i genuinely believe that mccall was quite happy to see us lose 5,6 or 7 that day and i'm certain i said so at the time. the decisions he made in the dug out such as leaving two up front for the 90 minutes and not taking off a knackered steve jones who was making no effort to track back are baffling in any other context.

i'm hardly the first person to say 'mccall lies down to rangers' on here.

i think that in his time here there were games he was more bothered about winning than others. kuban and st johnstone away last season were games where we clearly weren't that bothered about winning. subbing on omar daley for a final run out in may 2013 was a mystifying decision. regarding the rangers game in 2011 i think that if the opposition had been different mccall wouldn't have left us wide open as he did that day. yabba a while ago implied we purposely lost to hearts on the last day in 95 because we wanted the away crowds. i imagine if you are involved in the game priorities might get mixed up.

when the manager 'rests' half the first choice defence for a game against rangers it raises an eyebrow. when you are three nil down and taking a pummelling and the manager takes off lasley and leaves on steve jones who is knackered and hasn't bothered to track back once in the full second half it looks dodgy. rangers tore us to shreds that day yet we were playing near enough 4-2-4 at the end. the game where mcculloch scored the winner at the end was also questionable to me. 89 minutes without a sub when the team were dead on their feet? that was also the day of the masonic handshake.

we just got rid of a manager who sent a team out to get gubbed by rangers to help his mate's goal difference a few years ago. it would be nice to have someone who wasn't in thrall to either side of the old firm and they don't come much more old firm minded than peter grant.

i don't want butcher but i don't think you can hold finishing bottom against him, we were by far the weakest team in a league where every other club was still living high on the generosity of their bankers.

2003/04 was a season when the phrase "punching above our weight" was actually accurate.