Tree

I have to agree that Tansey was very good yesterday. This season he has rarely been poor just very ordinary. My view of his potential was definately changed in the testimonial game against County where he and Morrison bossed the midfled (aided by Nick) and he showed a range of passing and composure which was different than most games this year. We saw this again yesterday with four passes which would have had commentators salivating if they came from higher profile players/teams. Without trying to be too critical, MacKay again showed that we need someone up front to lead the line. Even when he had time and space he rarely found a team mate with a pass. He is a very useful player when he has the ball at his feet and moving to goal and I am not suggesting that he does not have some potential. His movement inside the box is not that of a goal scorer either. Can't fault his efforts however and he did set up Tansey for the penalty with some nice play when surrounded by three players. I wish we had tried to give Shane some more time as striker to see if he can develop into this position. He is not really a wide player though does show nice skills on occasions.

I thought Piermayr showed again yesterday that he is by far a better right back than Meekings.

Not really surprised he's spouting that sort of drivel TBH. To my eyes it seems he's more of a Rangers man than a Caley Thistle man. Disappointing that a manager of ICT is pandering to 'ra peepul' but I suppose he's just looking after his own interests. The cringe inducing love-in with Mr McCoist before the 1-4 match was a low point, this is lower. If I was Terry I'd concentrate less on maintaining his rangers legend status and more on doing a better job for his current employers. This coming season is going to be very feckin important to ICT, we could have a great season finishing above county (a must) and maybe a decent cup run and league position... but if this fella doesn't get it right we could get relegated. Get yer eye on the ball TB, Rangers are finished and you're at a club with great potential - sort it out min. Butcher stated a clear fact in the interview that without the money generated from the old firm (and he did mentioned Celtic as will as Rangers in the interview) the club will have to cut its cloth accordingly. As can be seen from responses to a thread started by Caley D there is little appetite from supporters for replacing the money which the club will lose from Rangers being in the league. Whilst not trying to be an apologist for Butcher, there is nothing in the interview which can be construed as being anything other than stating the bloody obvious

I see that it is being reported that Miller was receiving countless abusive emails. Quality! Will the alleged Rangers fans ever get it? No humility, no class, no respect!

So the 10% discount for the first season back in the SPL (for season ticket holders in the First Division) does not count?

Adult prices are £525 to £595 though

With season tickets, merchandising etc do the ordinary fans not invest enough? Only each of us can answer this. Expectations as to what can be achieved need to be aligned to the income of the club. The point that Caley D seems to making is that the impact of 'integrity' may be for the club to take a financial hit. Is this acceptable to the fans if this leads to increases in costs or reduction in player budgets? Perhaps. The alternative to a reduction in budgets is for the club to incur debt and the calls will come for investment to be made to offset this, however this investment should be by 'others'

It always amuses me that fans always seem to call for shareholders/board members to invest more in the club, but always when asked refuse to invest anything additional themselves

Good pieces from both Waddell and Keevins today in the Sunday Mail. Rangers continue to simply not accept that they have done anything wrong and hit out at everybody else for daring to punish them for their actions. We all know the financial reality of the old firm's presence, however it does force the question to be asked whether it is worth settling aside every rule and principal just to keep them in the SPL.

It is amazing that many Rangers staff and fans still seem to think that they can divorce the club from any wrong doing. Multiple allegations exist of dubious practices prior to their current major shareholder coming on the scene, however this apparently should be swept under the blue rug with the suggestion that everything should be blamed on Whyte and Rangers Football Club should get away without any punishment. An independent panel make a decision and as per usual there is no humility shown in immediately suggesting that boycots of all other teams, Scotland matches and even official sponsors should take place. Even the Administrator seems to infer that they should get off with minimal punishment as we apparently cannot survive without them. Whilst there may be an element of truth in this, how much more of this circus are we expected to take before we come to the conclusion that life without one of the poisoned 'big clubs' may actually be better even with the potential reduced incomes.

If he has genuine reasons for not being present, would it be too much to expect him to have said in advance that he was sorry that he could not be present and wish the two players well? In spite of his personal or professional opinions of the players and their value to the team (I actually have no real issue with the idea that we needed to move on from Grant and Russell), as the current Manager of the club (and the Manager during the latter stage of their time with the club) it is at the very least his duty to publicly thank the players on behalf of the club for their efforts (hence the reason for the testimonial in the first place).

Good games in both first and second half. Shane up front caused no ends of problems with Tansey, Ross and Gavin 'bossing' the midfield even when County changed to pretty much their first team. Rossco was a man mountain and showed how much the game meant to him even if only a friendly. The day has unfortuantely been tarnished by the failure of Butcher and Malpas to make an appearance. In the past I have tried to stick up for these guys, however they have disgraced the club, shown a lack of respect for loyal servants to the club and embarassed themselves in front of many of the fans. After the joke that his second half tactics were yesterday, perhaps we should ask out goalkeeping coach to take over for the next game

Positives - Doran returning from injury Negatives - Too many players lack basic abilities - 'Planet Butcher' tactics (Tade shoved wide when clearly he was cauing Dons defense problems, then replaced???, then Williams moved forward (ultimately it was him losing the ball after a good run from Shane which led to 2nd goal)) - When do professional footballers realise that to score a goal a shot must be on target - not a single shot on target in the second half At the moment I think that many season ticket holders will simply not renew next season

Maybe they should have a different fund raising initiative.........................................perhaps selling pegs or white heather

A mature, well rounded, constructive post

In reality our season last year was made falsely better by a good start and a good finished. We barely picked up a point from November to March.

Whilst I can't really be bothered to wade into this 'happy clapper' vs 'negative realist' love in (is there any actual point being made in amonst the personal rubbish), can I just point out a couple of minor things 1. We have pretty much the lowest budget in the SPL. Dunfermline have six players earning in excess of £2k per week and Hibs will probably have even more. How many players do we have earning over £1.5k? Perhpas this may be why we struggle to attract the next Messi 2. How long does it take for the fact that Steven-MacKay turned down a contract offer to register against Butcher turning him away? 3. The problem of poor entertainment is Scottish Football wide and not unique to the TCS. Football in this country needs to change, but how does picking individual players to be ritually slagged off on this forum help? 4. Thankfully every First Division manager has noted how the football from County is slick and entertaining. My County supporting pals class it in their words as 'grim but effective'. They are also about to lose possibly their most skillful player to Dundee Utd

A bit of perspective is required. Yes, it was poor and the points regarding the overall lack of quality are accurate. Unfortunately we are in the business of looking for free signings and paying low wages - this does not add up to the ability to simply make simple changes. In terms of Butcher, the biggest problem that he seemed lost as to how to change things in the second half. That said, we simply do not have any 'impact' players on the bench who can fundimentally change the type of game we play (the two who could are both currently injured). The defense as a whole were pretty solid. TJ as expected after being out for 6 months ran out of steam after an hour, however he is one of the few players who doesn't panic when people come near him and can pass to within 20m of a team mate (when they are only 20m away!). Tansey - I'm afraid he is one of the most 'ordinary' players I have ever seen for a while. Never has a poor game, but then rarely seems to have a good game. Came hear as a 'goal scoring' midfielder you will recall The main difference last night can be summarised as the difference between top six and bottom six teams (we are clearly the latter at the moment). We have two gold plated chances and can't even shoot without tripping over the ball. They get a sniff from a penalty and win the game. Unless we get a serious amount of money from somewhere (which we won't) we have to look to build a team over a few seasons and hopefully develop our own players to augment this. This is year 1 of the development and there are some changes to be made over the summer, however to maintain perspective, we were not played off the park and we did in fact have clear chances in the first half to win the game.

Seems a high amount for a 25% share in a 'business' which does make a profit, has limited tangible assets (including no property) and a negative outlook in terms of income generation over the next five years.

You are missing the point. Proctor is the current choice for the 'which player should we slag off' competition. Some of what is being written about him is a bit of overkill. He is a good player who unfortunately suffers from inconsistency particularly when he losses confidence in a game.

The whole renewable agruement is highly complex and needs to be split down into the various forms to get a real appreciation of the complexities. To deal with wind first, there are a number of basic syncronisation issues as well as the unreliable nature of the wind (i.e. you need 100% redundancy in electricity production from other forms for periods when the wind does not blow) and the best information suggests that the maximum percentage of wind which can be generated is in the order of 7 to 13 % depending on who you believe. This is being borne out in some regions of Scandanavia where there are finding that there is a ceiling on how much wind can be used. Aside from the technical issues, the cost for wind generation, particularly offshore, are in the order of £157 - £186/mWh vs Nuclear at £67mWh (there is a Motts Report from a couple of years back which gives various numbers for each of the options). My view is that wind is part of the 'big picture' but has been overplayed as a solution to all problems. The main other renewable option for Scotland are hydro - both major (Glendoe when it gets fixed and the new Great Glen projects) and micro-hydro (estimated to be 3,500 potential schemes by the Scottish Government). From a profit perspective, hydro is good in that it can provide peak production (unlike wind which is base load due to the non-guaranteed nature) and this offers a major premium. Interestingly, when SSE gave Glendoe the go ahead the ROI was borderline. By the time it was completed (sic) the ROI was massively foreshortened due to the increase in wholesale value. Glendoe, when fixed, will even generate income by providing 'hot stand-by' for the French and English based generators by sitting syncronised but not on-load in case of plant failure (there are massive penalties for the generators if they drop out). The micro hydro option may struggle to provide the 3,500 due to capital cost/ROI and technical issues. Uncertaintly on FIT does not help either Wave and tidal generation has yet to demonstrate that it can be successfully deployed. The potential is howver massive both in terms of production and certainty (as long as the moon rotates round the earth :) ). Nuclear provides a fall back against lack of wind or drought and should be considered as part of the picture. My view is that electrcity security is almost as important as electricity cost - the thought of relying on other countries for fossil fuels does not seem clever (though this may be more of an issue for the wider UK than Scotland). For those interested, there will be investment of c£8 to 10bn over the next 5 years to enable renewables to be incorporated into the wider grid. Part of this will be the proposed interconnector with Norway (look up NorthConnect) which if is goes ahead will 'land' in Peterhead.

I would have to look into the specific details behind the administration, however in most circumstances 'football' creditors are viewed as Secured Creditors under the terms of the Administration procedure and it may be that the gate money is in effect at the head of the que for payment by the club (i.e. has to be paid in full in advance of any reduced payments under CVAs, etc). This may be academic in the sense that the Rangers trading company gets subsequently liquidated and available monies for any creditors may be limited. In this case Rangers will need re-electred to the SPL and I'm sure part of this process will be to settle outstanding amounts due to other SPL football clubs.

It never fails to amaze me that whilst the positive's in terms of performances and points have increased over the past six weeks it still is insufficient to stop certain 'fans' taking the opportunity to lay into players for no good reason. Gillet has Imrie in his pocket for most of the game (until he switched to the other side) yet apparently he is 'hopeless' Nick Ross, aside from his shooting, was one of the better players on the day perhaps, but apparently he is 'Dross'. It is fine for people to excert their right to free speach and opinion, however perhaps a bit of perspective would not go amiss??

Cox has only started 4 league games this season and is injured once more. Hasn't added much to our options anyway