Anchorman

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I hope he will. You hope he won't. That's where we differ. And yes I would help.

No it wasn't - "I'm sure the well loved Mark will get huge financial support from across the cyber community to fight this particular fight" - it was a sarcastic personal dig at MD. To polish it up otherwise is just lies.

I'm not Mark's greatest fan but I reckon that is a wee bit unfair. I don't think personalities should come into it. If it was any normal punter I reckon it would be seen as an admirable cause, and I think it should be seen that way regardless, if it is for the better good of the Club and fans.

I stood in the crowds lining the streets at Hamilton for the funeral procession. I was right up at the gates. Charlie Nicholas walked up the middle of the road behind the procession crying his eyes out (he was standing beside Coop when he collapsed and died) carrying a big bunch of red, white and blue flowers. He cut such a lonely figure that day. I have had respect for him since.

Is it just me that finds this stuff pathetic? It's like teenage lassies playing their drama queen stuff. Is anybody on either side genuinely offended by any of it? Honestly and truly?

http://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/ruud-gullit-perfect-xi

That's very brave of you. What if your big pal didn't answer? Would you just let him go?

Isn't the Court of Session only ruling on his previous involvement with a liquidated company? They will not pass him as fit and proper, or otherwise, in relation to his affairs in SA will they?

A draw at least against the bottom team and then a victory against second bottom, in two home games. Not blaming McCall but it's the least I expected regardless of who took the reins.

McCulloch was heavily at fault again for their second.

The Little General isn't renowned for bringing harmony to the dressing room. Remember after the Albertz and Ammo spat he said he likes to see animosity between his players as it makes them hungry. Good luck wee man.

Good luck with that. He just likes to point out others 'mistakes' as he sees them, but never commits to what he would have done if it were him. 'The man who never made any mistakes never made very much'

:o:o Meeeeooowww!!! You and Babycham don't go well together. This is going to be fun as I said last night, seeing as you believe all you read in the Sun (especially "we believe....." or "our sources tell us......"). Lets see how consistent you are with that stance.

My point exactly. Now you are getting it. Neither does Hildy - he is just either making stuff up or believing rumours in the Sun that suit him to believe. You see I'm not pretending to know what the board are thinking, so I fully agree with your comment above. I'm just delighted they are our board, and wish them every success for a long journey ahead, filled with tough decisions.

With respect he knows diddley squat, as do you if you think McCall will keep the job even if he doesn't do any better than mediocre, and that the board want McCoist.

The Sun says "It’s believed that" :D It must be true then. I will keep you to your belief in all things the Sun spouts over the coming months, and all the things Dave King is going to do for us. Will you believe them? It will be interesting.

Are you for real?? You come on here spouting statements about the board (1) Going to give McCall the job full time even if he performs mediocre (2) Smith turning the job down first, (3) the board wanting McCoist. I say it's all in your head - utter fabricated nonsense. Your response is to tell me that if I don't know the real insider information I can't challenge your crap? I don't know what the board are thinking. Neither do you - so stop making it up like you do know!!!

Nice attempt at a body swerve there, but what about the question I asked. Here goes again - OK what would you have done if you were the board at this juncture of the season. Kept McDowall? If not who would you have gone for less than a week after taking control? On the subject of Smith being offered it first - did I miss that? Where did you see that?

I don't know what is right regards to McCall's length of tenure or Walter Smith being asked first because I don't have insider information. But what I do know is that you don't know either and you spouted a load of fabricated bollocks on both matters as if you did. You've also been banging the drum for months and months about how King and McCoist are kissing cousins and that as soon as King came in he would appoint McCoist. Your latest lot of utter drivel on that subject is again fabrication, just so that you can start the same crap all over again. Stick to facts and I will take you serious.

OK what would you have done if you were the board at this juncture of the season. Kept McDowall? If not who would you have gone for less than a week after taking control?

The 'factual' stuff he wrote about Smith and McCall etc is utter bollocks made up in his own head, but put across as someone in the know. It's bollocks mate - pure and simples.

What a load of fabricated pish! :lol: "I believe this board would have kept Ally McCoist on if he hadn't already walked away - and remember - he's still an employee". - They would have kept him if he hadn't gone - but remember - he is still there - hes not gone. :lol: Quality stuff!

Straight question - do you consider yourself 'fit and proper' in the hypothetical situation you were offered a role with the Club - Yes or No?

Yes my assumption that it was the AGM was badly researched, but the fact remains they were treating angry fans with utter contempt.