Bluedell

McCrorie would be a massive downgrade on Butland.

Yes. Sorry, should have said that.

I thought it was a foul. It was a slight push but it still had an impact on the keeper. I'd have been screaming for a foul at the other end. As for offside, I'm not so sure on that one. If he hadn't touched the keeper then I'd be arguing that it's not offside under the current rules.,

Will try and look into it when I get a chance and let you know.

I'm not an expert in property. My interpretation is that the land is ultimately WH's but the stadium is Celtic's and and they have the right to the use of the land as long as they pay the feu.

You're obviously correct about BoS. Celtic redeveloped Celtic park around the tail end of NIAR but I think it was really in 2000 that the main loans from the Co-op started...although my recollection on Celtic finances may be flawed and you may be correct. Edit - they did receive loans of £14m in the 1999 and 2000 seasons. I don't have records further back than that. Even so, the mass spending by Murray from 1999-2004 was to get success domestically and in Europe and wasn't in reaction to Celtic as such, although that's purely my opinion.

I did realise that but just threw in the relatively meaningless bit of info on the land. I'm not sure that the Co-op bank was that significant as such. We got similar backing from RBS. The GCC point though is extremely relevant. They have been fully supported by them and got the whole area refurbished whereas Murray's plans to buy the Hinshelwood Estate were blocked and they then made sure that they built housing so that we were unable to do anything in that area for another generation, including extra high housing to try and block the view of the stadium from the motorway. All clearly deliberately planned. Where I would take issue with you was on Murray's realisation. It took him a long time to fully realise the political reality that there were many politicians actively working against us. He didn't seem to court the politicians in the way that someone of his standing should have. It was the fans who reached out to the likes of Ian Davidson at the time. He just didn't seem to get the outright hatred there was for us. Maybe he saved up his political influence for parts of his business that made money but I was always under the impression that he never made any effort for us on that front.

He owns the land inside the red. He literally owns the land around the stadium. Don't know who he bought it from.

The situation with their stadium is weird. Willie Haughey owns all the land around Celtic’s stadium, and it was sold to him for £1,000 back in 2000, with Celtic being the feuar.

Gub would complain about anyone who wasn't as staunch as him. The main issues people had with Murray during NIAR were that he wouldn't defend the club and he wasn't in favour of the party tunes but they were minor in the overall scheme of things. We came out of NIAR in a great position with cash in the bank. It was really under the 98/99 season that the alarm bells started ringing when we spent £38m on players, but it seemed reasonable to assume that he knew what he was doing. given he was a titan of industry. Even then he brought in £38m through a share issue the following year. It was when he carried out with the outrageous level of spending, probably towards the end of 2001, that I realised that he didn't really have a clue.

30% of Azure was owned by Caroline Black and Lawrence Morison. It's probably Black that you remember. Azure did make a profit of £244K in 2008 but that didn't cover the loss in 2007. It just wasn't a profitable business and was sold for £1, IIRC. Elior was an established international catering company when it bought Azure. It had turnover of over £1 billion back in 2004. The "perceived wisdom" was definitely incorrect. I seem to remember you prefer your rosé to your robust reds from the last time I had the absolute pleasure of you and your good lady's hospitality.

I was just posting that (and giving you credit) at the same time as you posted it.

IIRC, Murray brought in Enic around that time. It allowed him to spend cash that previously wasn't available. As 26th of Foot always says, he was a gambler. He always believed that he could raise more cash. after he spent Enic's cash, he used Dave King's (plus a bit of his own), then NTL then JJB. He was confident in his own infallibility in raising more cash for the club. It was this gambling streak that finally brought his business down as he financed the purchase of property with short term loans rather than mortgage related finance so when the financial crisis happened in 2008 he was screwed.

I'm sure that we have had this conversation before but: When Azure was set up, Murray owned 70%. In its 3rd year of trading, its turnover was £4.4m and losses were £28K. Azure was sold in 2004 to Eliance Events Ltd, a joint venture between Elior (51%) and Murray (49%). Its losses to date at that point were £2.2m. in 2005 and 2006 Azure's turnover was around £14m but they made losses of over £600K in both years. In 2008, Murray sold out his shares to Elior. As for the "For every pound he injected into the club after 1998, he took in excess of £11 out" we had to pay someone for the services and why not a Murray company? Easier to control. How much of that £11 was pure profit? Unknown but it could have been £1.50-£2.00, or even less. The big unknown is whether the services that the Murray companies doing so at market value? Was there a competitive tendering system? There's a lot to criticise Murray for but we should make sure we're making the correct arguments.

The "staying to the end of the Japanese season" rumour has apparently been denied by Muscat's people, according to H&H.

No. He didn't know who they were (or knew and wasn't saying).

Apparently he's one of several "football" people that have been advising the board (as per Davie Edgar).

My recollection was that he didn't play that much in the league for us, and checking back, sure enough, he only started 12 league games in the 2007/8 season, but I was surprised that he started 36 out of the 38 league games in the 2006/7 season.

If we had a DoF, is there any guarantee that he would have overruled Beale on some of his signings? Beale did a good job with regards to getting in the players he wanted. The quality of these players is a different matter but that's easy to argue about it with hindsight. Where the board did let us down in not having a DoF was moving some players out. It doesn't seem that Beale was too invested in ensuring we got players out the door. The other area that Beale totally ignored was looking at the make-up of our Euro squad and the lack of homegrown players. Again, I'd have hoped a DoF would have insisted that more attention was paid to this.

Apparently my source was talking crap. Apologies. I posted in good faith. Sorry again.

I'm hearing Clement has been offered the job.

I don't understand the clamour to drop Davies.

St Mirren 3 Gers 1 Tav

The SPFL have announced that cinch will terminate their title sponsorship of the SPFL at the end of the season - TWO years early. The used car dealer has triggered an early exit clause in the five-year contract they signed with the Scottish football's league body in 2021, forcing CEO Neil Doncaster to look for a new sponsor next season. The £1.6million per season agreement - hailed at the time as the SPFL's 'largest-ever' sponsorship - proved hugely controversial as Rangers refused to take part in any promotion for cinch, citing a conflict with former chairman Douglas Park's own used car firm, Park's of Hamilton. The long-running dispute went to court before the deal with the online car company was eventually revised last year, excluding Gers from having to display any cinch branding within their stadium or press conferences. The Light Blues later claimed another off-field victory as the SPFL were forced to offer a grovelling apology over the embarrassing episode and pay towards legal costs. And now in a statement, the SPFL have said: "The Scottish Professional Football League has announced that cinch has exercised its right to conclude its title sponsorship deal at the end of the current season. The SPFL and cinch signed a five-year contract in 2021, which gave cinch the option to exit after three seasons. The deal played its part in helping the SPFL deliver record-breaking revenues back to its 42 clubs in the last 12 months." Doncaster said: “cinch has been an excellent sponsor for the SPFL and has been clear on the significant boost to its brand awareness from our partnership. We will, of course, ensure that cinch continues to enjoy the many benefits of its sponsorship of the cinch SPFL for the rest of what promises to be a hugely exciting league campaign. “The passion, drama and excitement of the SPFL has played a leading role in driving cinch’s considerable brand growth in Scotland and across the rest of the UK. Working closely with Scottish Football Marketing, we will now begin the process of securing a new title sponsor for next season and beyond, and anticipate strong interest from businesses which recognise the unique value of partnering with Scotland’s premier football competition.” Robert Bridge, Chief Customer Officer of cinch, commented: “Over the past three years, cinch has become the UK's leading online used car business and built a household brand with awareness of over 85%. Its successful partnership with the SPFL has been an important contributor to this achievement. As cinch looks to the future, its marketing focus is evolving to ensure continued success and growth.” SPFL announce cinch sponsorship will END two years early as deal to be terminated in 2024 - Football Scotland