Leaderboard

Doesn't matter that he is now available. One player does not win you a match and we still have a much better team than hearts.

Can't help wonder whether Elgin would have been better staying in the Highland League than constantly languishing near the foot of the Third Division.

(Warning nawty words)

...no, but would have done on this particular topic!

Spoke to him and Marley today, never mentioned anything about moving away, Marley fit and ready to play.

Let him moan! He's a total tw*t!

First interview tomorrow and he will be in dugout on saturday.

If people think that Hearts deliberately changed the date to before the semi final to get Stevenson to be eligible they are wrong. It has worked out for them in that respect but the real reason that it has been rearranged is they need the money with things going dry in march if they don't get out of admin quickly. Yes Stevenson will now be ready for the semi final but they will not be able to make many changes to keep there squad fresh. We have beaten hearts twice and been pretty dominant in both games with Stevenson in the side both times so he wont make a massive difference. We shouldn't underestimate them but we should be to strong for them if we play at our best.

Closes 23:00 on Friday 31st Loan dealings are not usually done till near close of window. Also likely waiting to see if Billy is staying.

I see nothing wrong with the BBC seeking the raw data before reporting on this. Why on earth should they report on research which criticises them if they genuinely feel the findings are flawed. We all know that mud sticks and if they were to dutifully report it but make a statement that they were challenging the findings, the perception that they were biased would persist even if subsequent analysis of the raw data showed otherwise. Let's face it, this type of social science research is open to a lot of subjectivity and there is some seriously bad research about even where there is absolutely no intentional bias. If the BBC see content in the paper which suggests that the evidence may not reasonably lead to the conclusions reached, they have every right to challenge that. As an example, the report cites a story about a Scottish patient being denied a cancer drug which was available to patients in England. The implication here is that because Healthcare is already devolved matter, independence will lead to more of this. The BBC reporting the patient being denied the drug is therefore interpretted as taking an anti-independence stance! It goes on to state that there are examples of patients in England being denied drugs available to patients in Scotland but that this was not reported thereby increasing the bias. But why would a patient in England being denied a drug be a news story for the BBC in Scotland? The story may be a criticism of the NHS in Scotland and it may be an unfair criticism, but to interpret it as taking an anti - independence bias really is stretching it. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the BBC is not biased, but I do think that this illustrates just how complex these issues are. The kind of soft research identified here is fraught with difficulties and the BBC are quite right to seek the raw data before reporting on this. Of course, once they have seen the raw data they should then report it objectively and offer their comments accordingly. If you read all the pro-Independence websites and FaceBook pages, DD, and read the whole report....you'd know that, for by far the biggest proportion of them, there had been individual complaints made....all of which had been pooh-poohed or ignored (as were both of mine). And despite the volume of complaints, none of them have turned up on the BBC complaints website. Now maybe I'm not as trusting as you...but that smacks to me, of an organisation which knows it is driving a horse and cart through its charter obligations.and hopes that, by ignoring they won't have to admit it. The heid bummer of the Beeb said at the Edinburgh Festival that they don't have to be fair and unbiased until the official run-up to the Referendum. Does that not illustrate the BBC mindset to you? I had a rant, when I wrote to them, about the very fact that, when I went on to their complaints site to complain about their bias, I found that their charter allows them to be biased, if they want, unless within the official run up to elections/referenda, which means they can produce their crap until 30th May 2014, before they actually have to have an equal number of pro-independence and anti-independence supporters on political programmes in which independence is an issue, instead of, as now, having a three to one majority of pro-Union supporters..and won't be allowed to sign off a programme with the last word going only to the Unionist and repeated in different words by the presenter. It wouldn't be a problem if we didn't have a majority population who didn't still believe, as I used to until 1979, that the BBC was trustworthy, unbiased and always told the truth. Add to that a print media who is at least as biased, and faithfully picks up and promulgates all the crap emanating from the likes of Elgin's Gary Robertson, Keith's James Naughtie and every UK politician's rear end. I can link you to a lot of stuff which was blatantly unfair....but do you know how hard it was to get even this acknowledgement of bias .....it took nearly a year....and no public acknowledgement to make up for their public lies. Raw data reported objectively and the BBC to offer their comments accordingly....don't make me laugh! http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/affairs-scotland/8501-independence-and-the-eu-how-bbc-scotland-were-caught-misleading-the-public-part-one. To prove they are unbiased, in their response to me, they linked me to this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13326310 . and I then complained about the whole tone of the article...and the fact that the writer said Incidentally, 2014 also happens to be the year two prestigious sporting events - the Ryder Cup golf tournament and the Commonwealth Games - are being held in Scotland. And for the more romantically-minded, next year is also the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, which saw the English army defeated by the forces of King of Scots Robert the Bruce, during the wars of independence. And never mentioned the newly decided "Celebration of the start of WWI" which is something only the UK is celebrating out of all countries involved.. The Ryder Cup, the Commonwealth Games and Bannockburn had at least the merit that they were not deliberately organised to try to influence the Independence campaign. I read somewhere that "Of course those who went to war couldn't have known when the referendum was going to be held to get the dates right, so it wasn't a deliberate action by Cameron to try and influence the referendum (or words to that effect)", but I bet you any money you like, if WWI hadn't started in 1914, and there had been any battle or anything at all he could have wrapped in a UK cloak, which fitted the timing, we'd be celebrating it. Cameron has known since he was at school that WWI started in 1914....so it is really awfully coincidental that he decides, four days before the signing of the Edinburgh Agreement, that it is acceptable to celebrate the start of a war which killed thousands of British soldiers. The charter says they have to be even-handed and accurate. In the NHS case....why else would they give the impression that it was only something which happened in Scotland and not mention the fact that it was something which pertained UK wide if they were reporting the NHS situation accurately? Can you not see that attributing something which happens all over the UK only to Scotland is because they are intending to imply that, because the NHS is devolved, it is a problem only for Scotland which will get worse with Independence? Sure as hell that's the way a helluva lot of Daily Fail readers will understand it. DD, if you had been an independence supporter subjected to the drip-drip of biased propaganda the Unionist media, including the BBC, have been subjecting us to over the years since 2007, you'd be irritated at best and incandescent at worst.

We wouldn't have signed Dean Brill if he stayed so we got the better deal out of it all.

Johnny Walker has helped me forget a lot of players.

I think we need a new CB. Going by Twitter Joe Gorman seems incredibly strange. Tokely IMO