craig

Hey.... Gribz and I already tried that by offering to buy the beers when Gersnet got a table at the RST do. Obviously at that point no Gersnetters were suffering through the credit crisis !!

In which case can you explain to me as to why there hasn't been a protest for 2 years ? See, maybe I am cynical, but like Gribz I doubt that there would have been talk of protests had we got past Kaunas

I guess Randy Lerner and MON must also be part of the scam then

Said with hindsight per chance ?

Which money ? I havent seen the financials so I cant say where it went but I would imagine some of the debt was paid off.

But if SDM says it is a good bit of business you can bet that EVERY time he means from a financial sense. So in a financial sense it WAS a good bit of business and, to be fair, even from a footballing one it could be argued it was a good bit of business - since we sold Cuellar we have just spent all of the funds and look a far better team for it. Would I prefer him here ? Absolutely. Would I sacrifice him if needs be in order to sort out the dire midfield we had ? Absolutely. So in that sense it could also be interpreted as good business. It would be BETTER business if we had the funds to sign those midfielders AND keep Cuellar - but there ya go.

Liar - you are an ugly bassa skint or not !!

Hutton ? :fish: Naismith at Sheff Utd ? Never was overly keen on him but knows the Scottish game well enough.

Aye right !!!!

Said the same on another thread. The threat of the protests has at least got the powers that be to DO something.

This is an unbelievable sum of money for Chelsea to be awarded. 13.68 million. WOW. I wonder how they came up with the 13.68 million ? Because Chelsea had to replace him ? Was that his transfer fee to Chelsea ? http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/08/08/18/SOCCER_Mutu.html Fiorentina star Adrian Mutu has vowed to appeal against the �£13.68million fine he has been ordered to pay former club Chelsea, slamming FIFA's ruling as "unjust" and "inhumane". FIFA's dispute resolution chamber ruled that Mutu must make the compensation payment after testing positive for cocaine while at Stamford Bridge in 2004. The Romania striker was sacked by Chelsea following his failed test but has since rebuilt his career in Italy and he has vowed to fight the ruling. "This is an unjust and inhumane sentence," he told reporters, as he confirmed that his lawyers were studying the case. "We are going to appeal. "This sanction is not right, because I don't think I have committed a crime that merits such an amount." World players' union FIFPro have pledged their support to Mutu as have the Romanian Footballers' Trade Union (AFAN). Mutu and his lawyers are expected to present an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in the next few days, although reports suggest a decision by them will not be made before next year.

Absolutely. If we aren't objective then it is pointless. Plus.... we have the MAYBE column for the biased incidents :fish: Just wait till the first OF game and we will see how objective we are though......

I agree, hence why I voted dont care

OK Fraser, you want my thoughts ??? just kidding wee man (says the 5ft6 dwarf to the 6ft2 kiddo....) I myself wouldn't protest but have no problem with it as long as our reputation as a club isnt tarnished and as long as we get positive progress at the club due to it. It worked for the Tims (back to them later). Re Murray leaving I agree - he has said he wants to leave but hasnt had suitable offers/people. IF you believe he is telling the truth then all that awaits is a suitable party to come forward and one hasn't yet. And therein lies the problem - none of us or our protests can force his hand to sell to ANYONE. It is his toy so to speak. And if there are currently no interested parties then it is a moot point anyway. Re getting off Murray's back. Not sure I agree with you. I suspect that it was the proposed demonstrations on Saturday which got him to open the purse strings and approve the signings we saw - so I think that there can be a part to play in putting pressure on the powers that be. It also forces them to realise that all is not well and that they need to up their contribution. Re Get off Smith's back. Again, not sure I agree with you. t was his team formation and tactics that got us put out of Europe (although he wasnt helped by the players who should comfortably have seen off Kaunas). But if you are coming at this from the angle of "it wont help the team get results" then I agree. Get off Bain's back ? Disagree. I don't believe that Martin Bain is a good Chief Executive, simple as that. He is a yes man IMO. A good CEO should be a forward thinker looking to improve the club in all ways. I am not convinced that he does this. In fact I think we have retracted as a club in the last few years. Get off the team's back ? Hey, if they put in performances like they did against Kaunas then they deserve it. Simple. Again though, if coming from the "it wont help get results" angle then I agree. Let the background stuff sort itself out ? Normally this IS what we should do - but can any of us feel comfortable that those tasked with that responsibility are doing it, and doing it well ? I doubt it. And..... if we just let things "sort themselves out" we could be a club headed into administration. Just look at the Tims - they allowed things to "sort itself out" and almost went under - they used protests and the like and came out the other side. Protests can have a part to play and putting pressure on the power brokers can mean a lot. Re who Murray sells to. Even if Murray chooses who he sells to NO-ONE, not even SDM himself, can be assured that it is the right person or that the new incumbent would be right for the club - there is an element of luck in that !!

If the cluse was inserted after we lost to Kaunas there is, in my opinion, NO WAY that it would be inserted at such a low amount. If it was SDM that instigated Cuellar leaving he wouldn't have been so stupid as to insert a clause which allowed Cuellar to leave for more than a 50% reduction on value - that would be silly.

Confirmed. At Bristol City till January on loan

I like the look of that formation too - the only thing I would worry about is the lack of width, especially as we have Beasley and now Aaron who could provide that. That said, Mendes looks like he has vision so perhaps he could open up defences through the middle.

I would be very surprised if you talk pish more than I take the hump or indeed more than I talk pish !! Nothing personal on this end Barry. I have been told I should be a politician..... I just couldn't hack having to tell lies for a living though. Will respond to PM shortly my man !

Apparently Bristol City are now in for Webster. http://www.sportinglife.com/football/scottishpremier/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/08/08/18/manual_152750.html&TEAMHD=scotspremiership Bristol City are reportedly closing in on the signing of Rangers defender Andy Webster. It is understood the Championship club have made a move for the Scotland international after losing Jamie McCombe to injury. McCombe faces up to six weeks on the sidelines after fracturing his cheekbone in Saturday's draw with Derby and Robins boss Gary Johnson is keen to bring in Webster to fill the void. Motherwell have also enquired about taking Webster on loan, but City hope to lure the former Wigan man to Ashton Gate. Rangers are willing to loan out the 26-year-old as he looks to get some regular action under his belt. Webster was restricted to just one appearance for Rangers last season and a loan move would suit both City and the Ibrox outfit.

After all that....... :fish: You should be on a debating team though Barry.

You are right, I don't. I, and I am sure you, have far more important things to be doing than debating semantics - or at least it is semantic in my opinion.

What a diatribe and for what ? Sorry, but I doubt your time OR mine is worth the response, do you (even though I find myself compelled)? You say I am providing nothing constructive and that is your prerogative. But pray tell, what constructive advice do I (or anyone) get from your above post ? I would have thought that by saying "everyone has a right" would have been plain enough to see - I believe that YES they have a right and are ENTITLED to protest - is that plain enough for you Barry ? Did I say you couldn't question me ? Not at all - my point was merely that here we are in a pointless debate IMO. I am sure you have more important things to be getting on with, as do I.

You would drop Thomson ? I think Thomson will be a revelation this year and his partnership with Mendes already looks very good after Saturday. I would have Ferguson, Mendes and Thomson and would drop Davis from that starting line-up. Would play Whittaker at RB for a run of games too.

Barry, sorry but you are wrong. How can you construe me saying that they have as much right as Fraser as meaning that Fraser cant say what he likes ? 1. I did not say that Fraser was wrong to have that opinion. I asked why they should GTF. I didn't suggest he was wrong at all but you can spin it however you like. 2. I stated that they have as much right to voice their dissent as Fraser does to dismiss them. So, by inference in your post, you are suggesting that I am saying that BOTH factions would be wrong ? Nonsense. Why would it NOT be an answer to that. If you look at Fraser's posts on the subject he seems to NOT be in agreement with the protesting of the club management. That is his right and I never denied him it. But why then should others GTF ? Why should they NOT have that same right. Personally I think the question I posed of Fraser was valid and that both HE and THEY have the same right - you just chose to jump in on what was a pretty inane question and, at least to me it seems, for no real reason. You can interpret my questioning of Fraser all you want and can place words to my post - but the actuality is that it merely stated that those fans who disagree with Fraser and who DO want to protest have as much right to do so as he has to dismiss them. Quite why we even get to this stage of debate for a trivial subject is beyond me.

Who said that he couldnt ? I said that the other side have AS MUCH right as he does, not that he shouldn't have his opinion.