Libero

Good luck to everyone involved

back where we belong!!! YYYAAASSS!!!

Brilliant!! :D

Ha ha, brilliant!!!!! Feckin teckle!!

WHAT A GREAT FEELING TO KNOW THAT WERE BACK!!! YYYYYYAAAASSSSSS!!!! :021:

hurry up and blow the whistle!!!!

Gettttttt iiiiinnnnn!!!!!! YYYYYAAAAASSSSS!!!

didnt think about that. good shout

the sooner we get the title sorted the better in my opinion, regardless of the manner we secure it. It means we can start looking at next year and securing vital players on longer contracts and looking at strenthening. Mon the rovers!

Feel free to correct me but I'm pretty certain Rankin had a year left on his current contract and Gardyne currently has 2. That's the point I was trying to make, obviously not very well. A player on a longer contract usually commands a higher fee. My point about them being different players stands however. At the end of the day if he does move, whether its ?10, ?1mil or ?10mil he is a good player which i reckon could fit into our team well in behind rooney. Whether he is sold remains to be seen and we'll just have to wait and see Back to the topic, I think we could do with someone like Gardyne, a centre half, a right mid and cover at left back if Golly gets injured or suspended

Feel free to correct me but I'm pretty certain Rankin had a year left on his current contract and Gardyne currently has 2. That's the point I was trying to make, obviously not very well. A player on a longer contract usually commands a higher fee. My point about them being different players stands however. They may have had differing time left on their contract but the fact remains that they were under contract and at SFL level i dont think this would affect transfer value too drastically. They may be different players in terms of ability/personalities/hair-cuts etc but there are a lot of similarities between them, position, history, potential, ambition etc. I believe that theire transfer fees would be around the same if Gardyne was to leave this season. IMO if he moves it would be for no more than ?100k

Rankin, when he was sold, was under contract and Gardyne is currently under contract, dont see how their contract situations are in anyway different. In an ideal world they would hold out for ?250k but i dont think that he would go for as much as that if he was sold. Bare in mind he was signed on a free so any money they make will be a nice profit. I honestly dont think any player in the SFL would command a fee of ?250k, especially when the likes of Griffiths and Harkins (also both nominated for player of the year) cost ?125k and ?150k respectively while both under contract.

250k for Gardyne your having a feckin laugh surely. Absolutely cal234ey!! John Rankin only cost us ?65k from county while he was under contract so there is no way they would get ?250k for Gardyne. Rankin not only came through the youth system at Man Utd but also was IMO a better player than Gardyne. I reckon County would be lucky to get up ?75k for one of there players

Fancy a plate o' Jon Bon Jovi's?

What about a song which will relate to title party like "I've got a feeling, that tonights going to be a good, good night"? Jocky disnae like black eyed peas though?? Thon beastie boys are teckle 'Fight for your right to paaaarrrtttyyy!!' would fit in though? :(

teckle idea harry beastie boys over the tannoy too??

well said

Brilliant!!

and score a bundle against us!! I know this is off topic but has any player who has left ICT ever came back and scored a bundle against us? i was getting at the fact Lovell has a bad habit of scoring against us, particualrly from his Aberdeen days

and score a bundle against us!!

Agreed that we cannot force a player to stay although i think that players are assets as some will have a saleable value. I think the club and team is always more important than the player, ultimately we should be doing everything we can to maximise the return we get from a player be it performances or transfer fees. i dont profess to know more than the men in charge but just hate to see us lose players for nothing when we could have had a fee and it seems to happen a lot with us cant disagree with that. i just hope we can get some financial recompense when/if they move on

I would say the likes of Gardyne and Lawson and Brittain are assets who could command a fee and if a club does want them then County have sensibly protected their assets. Quite a few of our major assets are out of contract and therefore not protected and we are stuffed if a club comes in for them. Our players will be wanted men so the club should protect its assets, not leave them free to speak to whoever they want. I believe the Bosman system is good for players but clubs could and should be able to tie up their assets before they can speak to other teams. It is great for a player to be playing well in the promotion chase while coming to the end of their contract, they have the potential to get a new contract here or hold out for more money somewhere else. This is not a good position for a club to be in as the player holds all the cards. Should we as a club not offer long contracts to players so that they can get a more suitable deal somewhere else? Thats just leaves our club open for anyone to strip our assets We as a club can only grow by increasing our bank balance. This will not be happen if we continue to let players leave on the cheap or for no fee.

Ross County seem to be able to tie up every single member of their squad bar two players. Why isnt it that we cant? Do you honestly think the only reason we only have 3 players signed for next season is because the players/agents have rejected contract offers? I understand that players will come and go but we could potentially lose an entire first team squad for nothing. Doesnt really make financial sense does it?

I sincerely hope we can hang on to our better players but having our best players available to speak to other clubs is sheer lunacy if you ask me. Nowadays football is centred around money and we could potentially lose thousands of pounds of potential transfer fees by not having our better players tied to contracts. Why this club doesnt feel it necessary to protect its assets remains a mystery to me.

My assumption is that Butcher does not want a central defender being pulled out of position to take the throw in. If we lose possession directly from the throw in then we have a central defender effectively taken out of defensive duties. Personally i much rather wide defenders taking the throws. The throw-ins last night were a vast improvement upon our last home game although by no means good. Still too many time possession was lost.