UCF2008

Link in post #1

I think part of the problem we have with developing talents at Murray Park is the limited crop of footballing talent this country yields. Hence the reason that we've had for a number of years several English players in the National side who've qualified through blood ties. I think we should be placing more emphasis on recruiting young talents from abroad in order to really make the most of our youth development system. We've had a few of those come through so far who've either made limited or no impact on the first team, but you only need to look at the likes of Andy Mitchell who signed for us as an 18 year old having come through Man City's youth system. Then there's young Weiss who Man City recruited in 2006. Under PLG we signed Furman who'd spent 3 years in the Chelsea youth setup. Point being that you can successfully recruit foreigners at a young age, but we've not been doing so. It's actually one thing that disappoints me slightly about the transfer embargo being removed or replaced in that with the allowance of U18's I was hoping we might actually have been forced into investing more in this area.

Probably for the same reason that Naismith hasn't been slagged off for his contract clause. Unlike Lafferty, the other players in question don't have a list of indiscipline the length of your arm. Professionalism breeds respect from the support. I honestly can't think of any players who have got away with the amount that Lafferty has. His latest act of stupidity, by going AWOL, showed our club and support the amount of respect he has for us and what he should be shown in return - the door.

Why does he keep repeating 'unreconstructed Celtic supporter' at every opportunity in that article? Does he think it wouldn't sink into our thick bear skulls unless he hammers it in there? Seems to be using that approach more and more in his writing and it is getting kind of annoying. Personally, I think Leggo's gone a bit bit David Icke on us all. Shame too, because I used to enjoy reading his blog.

The CVA proposal includes any monies owed for the EBT case. It's in their alongside a number of other TBC amounts. In other words the creditors have no idea how much they're going to get. They only know (if they trust D&P's take on it that is) that they'll get more return from agreeing to the CVA and 'NIL' if we're liquidated.

No idea how that works with friendlies either. I'm just going by the statement from the SPL on the matter of our SFA membership. As usual they appear to be making up the rules as they go along, so I'm sure they'll work something out.

Yes, the SPL season starts at the beginning of August and like I was saying the SPL as a separate entity have stated that SFA membership issues wouldn't impact SPL status. Scottish Cup doesn't kick off till September with SPL clubs entering the competition at 4th round stage in January.

So they might hit us with a short term suspension until the transfer window closes, thus stopping us from playing pre-season friendlies and from signing players in this transfer window. I think it's already been established that this wouldn't have any effect on our SPL status but what about the Scottish Cup?

Because the CVA was still to be drafted at that time?

Trouble is Frankie, our squad is hardly bloated. It's currently sized down considerably from the 'thread-bare' squad that WS was so highly praised for winning the 2010-11 title with. Yes, we do need to reduce the wage bill to work within our means, but hopefully that is something that can be phased in over a couple of years. If that means selling one or two of the higher earners at close to their true value over said period when we're in a position to replace them with players that fit such a wage structure then that's good business sense. Our situation is still uncertain to the extent that we don't even know what means we're even going to be trying to work within at the moment. However, one way or another there should be clarity on that by around mid July or possibly even before if things go against us.

Of course he does, which is exactly why I don't think he'll be making any rash decisions. If he's told we need the money then I think he'll go. Otherwise I would be expecting Naismith to be the same as the rest and hold off for now until our situation becomes clearer.

I think in a lot of cases that goodwill from the players is dependent to a large extent on the other factors. The transfer embargo is one that's been hypothesized as a potential cause of a player exodus, when in actual fact it could have the opposite effect. The newco route however, is one that would leave the majority of those players with no prospect of European competition for the remainder of their contracts, so that would very likely prompt them to look elsewhere. Div3 is the worst case scenario on all fronts.

It's not easy to remain optimistic I can assure you, but in this case it's simple realism. If those players are allowed to leave on knockdown fees then that's more than a £10m loss from square one. It'll leave us struggling to compete and then when we are actually able to replace them it would cost around £20m to bring in players of similar quality. If that can be avoided by taking an initial hit on the shortfall through a £5-10m investment then I would think any forward thinking purchaser would choose that route.

Assuming that our under new ownership the club is actually run properly and realizes it's earning potential from both current and untapped revenue streams then yes, I think that shortfall can be made up without decimating the playing squad.

That email clearly points out that the conditions of the Ticketus funding (according to the draft arrangement of April 19th) were that Wavetower gain board control and remove all existing directors. Not to mention the fact that said agreement was to be held by CW undated. Yet Grier would have us believe that this didn't seem at all suspicious to him and was purely in relation to raising funds for working capital?

Out of interest, did you or anyone else manage to catch the hidden identity in the last email? A source perhaps?

Speaking of CB, that's exactly what they did with Withey and Ticketus will no doubt do the same with Ross Bryan. In the event they're taken to task they'll no doubt claim it was the act of an individual. That didn't wash for us though so you never know...

Hopefully it will put them under scrutiny from their peers and regulators, which could be good for us. Can't help but look at the 'evidence' against them though and think that the worst outcome for D&P is Grier being made scapegoat as he was the only one implicated. An internal investigation will result in him resigning. The End. ...At least that is unless they still plan on forging ahead with the CB lawsuit.

The bottom email on that page from Phil Betts contains a 3rd party who the BBC are hiding the identity of. Wonder who that could be.

What I don't get is where he says clubs entering administration achieve a sporting advantage over other clubs. Most clubs who enter administration lose players. Even we lost players and would have lost a lot more had it not been for them taking huge pay cuts. Despite that reprieve we still could lose half our squad. Where's the sporting advantage?

When we signed him I was dubious of his ability to make any significant impact. He didn't waste any time in changing my mind though. The wee guy's been a shining light in our darkest times and fully deserves his efforts to be recognized. No doubt performing on this stage could put him on the radar of several more clubs given his contractual situation, which will make it all the more difficult for us to hold on to him. However, he deserves the opportunity and I wish him all the best.

Unless there are any changes in our scenario prior to the 21st then our CVA proposal (via the Green consortium) will be in play. Assuming that the CVA isn't booted out from square one then it's going to be June 6th before we have any level of clarity ...and even then the certainty won't arrive till the following month. D&P have for best or worst kept themselves in a job until then

Of all the turncoats in the history of our rivalry, Dalglish is one of those I have the least problem with.

Thing is that this has nothing to do with UEFA's financial fair play rules as far as the SFA rule book is concerned. It's being made out to be in accordance with 'fair play' rules to appease the witch hunt brigade and could even have had some ever so slight bearing on the outcome - the SFA are more interested in their perception of public opinion than any UEFA influence in this case.

For the most part I would have to agree, but recent times have taught us well what impact the 'small minority' can have. That said, I don't really understand your point in the context of discussion.