steelboy

if you clap for everyone it means nothing. it has to be for people you especially respect. i know nothing about this guy other than his boy plays for killie and he died at hampden.

it's not hard to respect a minute's silence. i've sat quietly for a paedo sheltering pope and the never worked a day in her life jakey queen mother. appluading is different as it is actually an effort. i'll applaud people that i feel have earned it.

i can't really say i'm keen on clapping someone i know absolutely nothing about.

fuck that

that's what it should be. ideally i'd like - united (h) hearts (a) celtic (h) rangers (a) st johnstone (h)

jumping about in a fountain with your boaby out is probably best forgotten

exactly.

there is two different ways that can go down. leeds united, charlton and middlesborugh way. rangers never leave the spl, their share is transferred prior to oldco being liquidated. there is a mechanism within the league rules for this to happen. or they get liquidated and their membership lapses. do you make any distinction between them?

i wouldn't chuck anyone out that is capable of fulfilling their fixtures unless their is some explicit cheating going on eg the calcio scandal. ebt's are immoral but they are only a small part of a massive amount of tax avoidance (70bn a year). they were widely used by banks and english clubs as well because their accountants told them they found a loop hole in the system. the government closed that retrospectively (which i'm glad about) and now they have to pay up. no one is talking about punishing the english teams involved and no one has ever mentioned newco share transfer ruining the credibility of english football as far as i can remember. where were the high horses when we went into admin, bumped the taxman, sacked our players and finished bottom and still stayed in the league (then signed partick's best players whilst still in admin)?

why would what happens to rangers effect anyone's opinion on securing the future of motherwell. the point of the society is to make the club safe and sustainable for decades to come. the worst case scenario for a newco rangers is being back in the spl debt free in 3 years time (which is nothing). is lording it over rangers for a few years more important than the future of our club? not for me.

i think we need to know exactly what rangers being chucked out the league would mean for us. if it means binning our succesful business plan, chopping our playing budget by a significant and wholesale squad changes to make the new budget viable i'm not for it. i don't give a fuck about punishing rangers, i care a lot about motherwell continuing to be succesful. i also think a lot of the newco rage is a bit manufactured. i know a good few motherwell fans that support leeds and it doesn't appear to be an issue for them. i've never heard it casted up in regards to middlesborough or charlton. the directors have a responsibility to the club. they are working hard to make us as succesful as can be, to expect them to just discard perhaps a million quid of income a year is unrealistic. motherwell comes first.

26 goals in 11 games since he signed. before that we were averaging 1 goal a game in the spl under mccall. which is worse than brown's current spl record with aberdeen of 1.03

that's not really true. we actually scored slightly more goals per game under brown 1.43(63/44) than we have under mccall 1.41 (86/61). when you consider that mccall has clocked up 24 goals against lower division pish compared to only 2 for brown then it's safe to say we were a fair bit better at scoring in the spl with brown in charge 1.51(53/35) than under mccall so far 1.1 (55/50). under mccall we've failed to score to score on 24 occasions (39% of games) under brown we drew a blank 10 times (23%) i don't understand how the brown dour, mccall exciting myth got started.

i checked that out a couple of weeks ago. going by how teams that followed that path this season were seeded we wouldn't be.

we've already guaranteed top six. we're nowhere near guaranteeing fifth yet.

i don't think so. there's no way to know how much each player earns but the directors have stated that the playing budget for this season is £1.8m (35 thousand a week) which means there must be quite a few players picking up 2-3 grand a week. i think our average first team player will be on a better wage than their counterparts at all the other non city clubs. randolph, law, hammell and higdon would have came in on a good wage and hutchinson, hateley, murphy and jennings have surely all had pay rises over the past couple of seasons.

they took £150 quid out my account last thursday. does that count?

and the scottish cup as well please i don't know about not selling though. if this is the last chance to get a fee for murphy, randolph, hutchinson or hateley then i think we have to cash in. we need to look long term. i've also got a feeling that the club will be keen to get cheaper player in during the summer. all of our regular starters are probably earning as much as we can ever afford to pay them, i think we'll be looking for signings that provide a bit more value eg. hateley in his first season. it would be disapointing if we have to cut our budget more than planned due to the rangers situation. if have to take 300k-500k out or playing budget it would be a hefty blow.

i think this is a good idea. having a few under 20 players in the squad should raise the standard of the games which will be good for everyone involved and cut down on the amount of boys who are kept on to make up the numbers even although they have zero chance of making the first team. look at our squad, we have no need for a regular reserve side. organising friendlies when we need them is better than being tied into regular fixtures with the associated costs of travelling and organising a suitable ground for home games. it should work out well for us as next season everyone at the club will be either in the u19/20 side or the first team.

we need to bear in mind he was up against austin mccann on saturday.

hookers in the dam or possible opponents?

no chance, what are the performances that prove this? the rangers team that got to the uefa cup final and won the league the following season and the strachan sides that got to the last 16 of the champions league and gave a good account of themselves were much better sides. they have been poor in europe and both old firm games so far and they have hardly been putting the diddies to the sword despite the huge financial advantage they have and pretty much every club downsizing. there is not a player in their team of the quality of mcgeady or petrov never mind larsson or moravick.

how did 28,000 celtic fans manage to stand for the 90? we were embarassing that day.

goals conceded has a direct effect on results while goals score by one player doesn't. if a defence is keeping clean sheets or conceding one (which is par) then they are contributing to positive results. one guy scoring 1 in 3 or 4 isn't guaranteed to be doing that. higdon's scored in 10 matches and not scored in 20. you have to consider what he is contributing the 2/3s of the the time he's not scoring. for me he misses too many chances, gives away too many fouls, doesn't have much movement in the box and is poor in general play outside the box. in any game he's only as good as his team mates are playing, he's never going to add anything when we're not playing well or push us over the top in a game like the one at celtic park last week. looking back you wonder what mcdonald, porter, jutkiewicz or clarky would score in this team with this level of opposition or what the likes of o'connor, vernon, sandaza or daly would get. we've failed to score in 10 out 29 spl games this season. why is that?

they have zero creativity in their team. they are gash. they've conceded 5 in 10 since reynolds came into the team including playing both sides of the old firm. teams with mark reynolds in defence don't lose many goals in the spl. defences he has played in have only conceded more than one goal 5 times in his last 30 scottish games.