steelboy

it was said at the well society meeting in february.

i don't think faddy will be on much at the moment and the board thing might well be true but i think the reason for it was because they announced they were going to dip into the well society money about a week before he signed.

i thought he had his best game for us on friday and has been more aggressive over the past few months. i agree about the anonymous thing, a lot of the time he seems to be determined to stay out the way of opposing attacks. i'd sign him and kerr up, there is much worse out there and given that the standard of the league is likely to drop again in the summer due to financials i think we can get by with them.

at the dundee game he sat in the dug out at half time bouncing a ball rather than warming up which looked like a bit of a petted lip. from mccall's point of view if he had him in mind for next season i'm sure he would have came on on friday night. it's quite a strange one considering mccall at one point thought we didn't need faddy due to having higginbotham.

i can't see higginbotham being too happy that he has only played ten minutes in the past 5 weeks. i don't think he'll be here next season.

That's shocking. I would have had a word with them myself but if not identify them to Leanne and try them get banned from games.

you can do the same for other teams free agent queen's park released by preston league of ireland youth system released by hibs released by boro youth system airdrie youth system hartlepool one of our biggest advantages this year has been having a team who are extremely familiar with each other. that's also why ross county have done so well.

hutchy had a great game

maybe part of the united's problem is that we are quite close to their directors box? if we were behind the goals or next to fellow plebs they might not bother.

a bit of googling and it looks like the 10-2 vote is to change the number of teams in the league.

as i posted above reconstruction only needs 10 votes for some reason. it's possible that they will use that as an excuse to pass it on to the sfa. giving the responsibility on reconstruction to the people who employed burley, employed levein, didn't sack levein and commisioned a report who's suggestion to improve scottish football was to spend half a billion pounds on facilites is beyond belief.

reconstruction is a 10-2 voting issue.

it's possible that since reconstruction is a 10-2 voting issue the spl might attempt to hand this over to the sfa board even if st mirren and county don't want that.

as i posted in the shout box you have 4 people from the spl plus ballantyne who is strongly in favour of the rejected proposal. others have suggested that the sfa will outsource reform clearly forgetting that they have already spent a fair whack commissioning the mcleish report. will lawell and his mate regan address the unfair voting system?

they'll get a sponsor so it won't be that big a loss. united are in a worse position owing money for mcnamara and now getting hit with this bill from fifa.

it was backs to the wall second half but we had a good few chances in the first half after we scored. we defended brilliantly in the second half but were completely unable to hold onto the ball in their half.

agreed. with so many scottish players moving down south it's difficult for us to find quality or value up here.

good news for us that united have the signed the partick thistle duo. i can see them going rapidly downhill under mcnamara. we need to focus on getting a few quality additions this summer and avoid signing dross like harkins (or daley) who won't add much.

this is a huge game for and taking something from should mean we go up to inverness in second place, i expect it to be nervy but i also expect faddy, law and lasley to rise to the occasion. in both games at home against united dodgy finishing cost us, i'd stick faddy up front with higdon for extra goal threat. carswell in for ojaama who can be an impact sub.

samson would be a safe, steady option. i'd take him.

they were only offering to change the voting on some issues not all. Apparently financial distribution would still be 11-1 which makes any other changes worthless.

it's worrying that his stupidity could lead to further problems down the line. i don't see him working with gilmour any time soon.

it's possible that he meant "I am very angry because today we, and one person in particular, have let down Scottish football" rather than what the bbc are reporting "I am very angry because today we have let down Scottish football and one person in particular" but as i said lawell was putting a lot of effort into this despite celtic being the club least effected by all the changes.

as i read it he is saying that they have let down scottish football but especially let down one particular individual. it may just have been a poorly constructed sentence.

derek weir said the same thing at the meeting i attended but he also said he does very well securing sponsorship. today's events are in no way connected to doncaster and his job performance. it's down to clubs (including motherwell) being unwilling to compromise for the good of the game. the fact that doncaster seems to catch a lot of the flak and many fans think he is running the show when he's clearly not probably justifies his salary in many of the club's eyes. if there is to be a mass fan reaction it should be against 11-1 rather than doncaster. it doesn't matter who is the chief executive any positive change will only come from proposals being passed by the spl clubs.