steelboy

if we get a centre mid in and hutchy plays 90% of the games top six. if we only sign ramsden bottom six.

there were some minutes or notes from the sfl meeting posted online that said if rangers were in div 1 the contracts would stay the same but if they went to div 3 it would be a 75% reduction for next year.

probably still be chatting about how shite league two players are.

there's more chance of one of our support dieing of a kebab overdose in istanbul than there is of anyone getting stabbed.

we were very unlucky not to score at least one goal in that game and the performance was 100xs times better than our other visits to glasgow with the top scorer playing. when you look at the goal returns of jamie and henrik, the time they got on the park and where they played then they both out performed higdon.

randolph hateley saunders hutchinson hammell humphrey carswell lasley law murphy ojaama we saw the future at ibrox in may. pace and skill.

switzerland is minted and the swiss franc is sky high which distorts the table. also although most people in switzerland speak french or a form of german switzerland is quite an insular place and you can't compare the relationships of those countries to scotland's place within the uk. do swiss people watch the german or french broadcasts of major tournaments? in television terms our league is second fiddle in it's own country.

surely the best comparison in that table is austria. the population's aren't far apart although austria is bigger and more affluent. the biggest similarity is that both countries have a much larger neighbour with a huge succesfully league which speaks the same language. the reason the tv value of the spl is less than equivalent leagues in europe is because so many scottish people recieve and watch english domestic broadcasts.

bad news about hutchy's injury. time to give up the surfing big man

no kilts or club colours then. your turk was a wise man.

it's clear i was referring to tv income. that is the subject grahamh and i were discussing before you decided to stick your pendantic nose in.

i was specifically talking about football clubs and television income worth millions of pounds, not every item of income and expenditure in general. are you aware of any football teams that treat their tv income differently to other sources of income?

great analogy. multi million pound tv deals and salt and vinegar crisps. you usually need to go onto p&b for that kind of wisdom.

if it's in the budget then surely the budget is built around it? man city budget for using every last penny of their tv cash.

that has been happening for years.

then why give up the important job he was doing for mfc? and why was it announced only hours after the votes were counted? if you had been expending a lot of energy working for free attempting to balance the books the books at a football club then that football club against your advice put's makes a decision that will likely leave it in a perilous position would you hang around to clean the mess up?

they all get a share of the spl tv deal and i believe that all of them spend it. is it not the case in italy that the fans protest when their teams underperform on the park? was there any mass protest at milan and juve getting away lightly over calciopoli? it's not a defence of rangers, it's an argument for taking a course of action that best secures the future of motherwell. you can't deal with the consequences of a half million pound cash fall. if you have bills and don't have the cash your fucked.

i didn't respond to this because it's impossible to say what kind of punishment another team would get. there is no evidence that they've done any of those things or will do them in ther future. again you are talking about hypothetical situations. also there has to be a first time for everything.

what would you like me to respond to? we have one guy who thinks that clubs shouldn't use tv income as part of their budget. i could name 50 clubs in europe who do, can anyone name one club who don't? there is no point in responding to this.

the sfa didn't say that at all. page 54 of this document

that's by far the most likely reason.

european football is in mountains of debt. if clubs were hoarding their tv income rather than spending it that wouldn't be the case would it? why wouldn't clubs spend their tv income? it's fair in as much as we all start on zero points and play the same number of games. everyone has the same opportunity to finish 1st or 2nd if not the same likelihood.

i've only got one team. it's motherwell and i'll be at every game i can make as long as we have a club to support no strings attatched. you are making an absolute c**t of yourself by continually calling me a rangers fan. if you want to find out what team i support you are more than welcome to have a word at ayr a week on saturday.

we're not the only country which distributes money unequally. and the money doesn't go to the old firm it goes to the clubs who finish 1st and 2nd. hearts got a bigger share in 2006 and we would have got it if we had kept our bottle this year.

in what way aren't all teams treated fairly and equally?