starchief

Oh right.

He's the d'Artagnan. Talking of musketeers....when you think of the book/film of Alexander Dumas, how do you imagine them fighting? It's with swords, isn't it? And yet... Musketeers. MUSKET-eers. Surely then, they should be gunners

I think Knox pulled out when he realised his compensation claim would be thrown out by Blackburn if he accepted another post. We weren't paying enough to cover that, so was never offered the job.

The Foran-Ross-Hayes triangle is really looking something special. The best is yet to come too!

I think Ross gets a new contract automatically if he plays enough games this season - which appears likely.

I can't see how that would happen. After all, despite it's size, there isn't a single Celtic fan in the SFA. They're all Rangers remember - every single one of them

I think you need to bone up on refereeing procedures. The referee makes a report to his boss. Lennon then asked for clarification on a couple of points. Hugh Dallas (as was) then clarifies those points from the report. McDonald lied to Dallas about what happened (no doubt to make his referee rating - that happens every game - a bit better). So McDonald lied to Dallas. Dallas then conveyed those lies to Lennon. All of this is besides the point I was making (as I agree McDonald has to go). So, here are my questions: 1. Should Celtic have been awarded a penalty when TV evidence says differently? 2. Was the referee correct to change his mind, so the decision was right? 3. Why should Lennon complain about not getting a penalty when the evidence totally vindicates the view that it should never have been awarded (given that he knew nothing of the chat between assistant and referee)? 4. Are referees biased against Celtic? 5. Are referees anti-Catholic? 6. Given that the penalty that-should-not-be was awarded against Dundee United and only changed upon consultation with the linesman, are not Dundee United the more sinned against? 7. Are referees anti-Dundee United then?

Ross County offered a free tractor for a year. Peterhead offered a go on a tractor a couple of times a month. Elgin City said he could watch someone having a go on a tractor. Strathspey Thistle asked if he had his own tractor - the SFA have ordered them to improve their pitch. They're going to do that by growing potatoes - they reckon it'll bring in more money than what they currently use it for.

No he didn't. The ref lied to the refereeing supervisor. He never spoke to Lennon. But it doesn't answer my point. Why did Lennon complain about not getting a penalty that shouldn't have stood? That would have been the wrong decision to keep the penalty. Dundee United were the team that had cause to complain. Nothing anti-Celtic about it.

Doesn't make you a Hun to hate Celtic. Can't stand them myself these days (and I can remember loving watching them under Tommy Burns - what a team that was! pure entertainment - didn't win anything but I don't care). Not so long ago, I would have disliked Rangers more (then Hearts with Mad Vlad's...um...management style) but John Reid (how many have died or been maimed through his lies and he has the cheek to call anyone else's honesty into question?!?) has rocketed Celtic in my view (and it seems many others) right to the absolute top of the hate pile. Until Dr Death goes the way of his troops, I expect them to remain there for many years. Did anyone else struggle with the 'joke' reference? I was thinking Barcelona's Nou Camp and wondered if there was some sort of reference to Jock Wallace managing Seville Anyway, poor taste joke. Lucky you're not a ref! But I do think it's time to stop the you must be ICT and 'Rangers or Celtic'.

So why did Lennon challenge the decision then? He knew nothing of any white lies between ref and assistant. He wanted a dubious penalty to stand thinking Celtic should get the decisions. It was Dundee United that had cause to complain about the incident. McDonald gave a penalty against them that should not have been given. Dougie has to go but there's nothing anti-Celtic about the incident. If anything, anti-DU for giving a dodgy penalty against them.

The whole thing about the Dougie McDonald is Celtic fans seem to think they've been discriminated against. Why? What actually happened? - the referee gave a penalty against Dundee United - it's been conclusively proved that it wasn't a penalty, so the ref rightfully changed his mind. So the up shot is that a. the ref is anti-Dundee United, so was too quick to give a decision against them, or b. the ref is pro-Celtic and was too quick to give a decision for them, or c. Celtic fans believe they should be awarded dodgy penalties and, no matter if the ref is proven right not to award one, they should get the decision in favour of the provincial team. It's Dundee United that should be complaining (and they did) - all Celtic didn't get was a penalty that never was.

Lennon's interview was funny. He takes off a central defender when 2-0 up and no need to chase the game, then can't understand why Inverness, who he claims weren't a threat beforehand, score. The man's a novice, his assistants are novices and he has no real depth of experience in his background team, having made it clear he wasn't interested in an experienced DoF. Doomed to fail at the crunch.

Amazing but well deserved. You got the feeling that if Hayes had got the ball behind Mulgrew, he would have turned back just for the fun of taking him on. That Hayes, Duff, Ross combination down the right was so strong. Drawing away to both Rangers and Celtic. The stuff of dreams? Nope, reality!

I wasn't talking about Cadette. I was no fan of Farry and have held off mentioning him due to his untimely death. I'll give that a couple of months yet. I'm talking about this: "they are not supporting the referees they are getting at the SFA for not taking immediate action for a sectarian act perpetrated by one of their high officials" Evidence? It flies in the face of everything I've heard.

Why would seeing the e-mail make them want to support the referees? they are not supporting the referees they are getting at the SFA for not taking immediate action for a sectarian act perpetrated by one of their high officials I find that very difficult to believe. Any reliable evidence or just conjecture? From what I can read in between the lines, it's a case of refs not being told the whole truth about why Scots referees are not available. In fact, there's a Portuguese ref interview in the Daily Record saying that very thing.

Not Highland standard but a good few inches in Nottingham.

Do you think the refereeing is any better at the World Cup, or the Champions League? I certainly don't. Roll down the socks of a player and it's a free kick and yellow card. Anyway, it's not about if the refs are any good. It's 'are they biased?' And I wouldn't say it's even that so much. In the heat of the moment, with a manager's job on the line, he might say something he may not entirely mean. But for a chairman, in the cold light of day, to make accusations (shrouded ones of course - he's a bloody politician) that refs are bigoted anti-Catholics, hence why Celtic don't get any of the decisions (show me one fan outside of the OF that thinks that!). This is what's led to refs getting their windows smashed and abusive, threatening phone calls to their family. It's not the criticism of their performance, it's criticism of their integrity. The solution? Dougie McDonald and John Reid to resign (Reid to then stand trial in front of a group of injured soldiers and widows of personnel from Iraq for the judgment on his lies - I know who I think is the greater evil)

Teflon. That's the non-stick stuff. Some coating that makes your sausages not stick to the frying pan. They developed that for space travel. And yet...there's no gravity in space. So you would have thought they'd want their sausages to stick to the pan?!?

Lennon I can get over. Many managers shout about how badly their club is treated. Robbo at Hearts was one of the worst. What makes the difference is the insidious nature of their board. Rumours of a dossier, backhand comments about corruption yet nothing actually is said. It all completely plays into the paranoid nature of the Celtic fans. Reid is playing this for a game of politics. Refs haven't made any difference to Celtic losing the league to a broke Rangers, losing in Europe to a lesser team and losing in the Scottish Cup to Ross County. That said, Dougie McDonald does have to go. He lied. But why did he lie?? He actually got the decision correct. Dundee United had the biggest complaint. The ref gave an unfair penalty against them. All that happened to Celtic is they didn't get a decision they didn't deserve.

Another here supporting the refs. An impossible job. No surprise that the Machiavellian John Reid is fanning the flames of criticism. Mind you, no-one's died yet this time. Usually happens as the result of this idiot's actions. Strachan lost the league as he didn't strengthen his front line, Tony Mowbray lost by bringing in sub-standard talent and Neil Lennon just isn't experienced enough to take on Walter Smith or Europe (or Ross County or any match he needed to win). Likewise, they're not against Vlad's Hearts, Gus's St Mirren or even the Stirling Albion/East Fife/Arbroath etc etc teams that fans come on to Sportsound to complain about. The league position is usually a pretty good guide to the standard of your team. Refereeing mistakes don't seem to make a big difference. Time to stop the whining and on with the play.

I've never really got the spite against big Dunc either. It seems to be because he said Aberdeen was a step up. Given, at the time, the Dons were spending more than most, whilst not many thought ICT would even get promoted, due to the stadium issue, he wasn't too far wrong. How times change He did his best for us and that was pretty good. I thought he was a bit unlucky, with Pele, at Peterhead (mind you, not as unlucky as Iain Stewart) - surely they'd have been worth a few years of build up? Good luck to the guy. Seems a good shout for an assistant with his loyalty to his manager.

I dunno. Still a lot to prove. I still wouldn't rate him as a regular. He's had a good season so far but that could just be a purple patch. He still has to show he can do it week-in, week-out, year-in, year-out.

I wanted GMS at the start of the season with Hayes and Foran both out and Ross unproven (can't remember if Gill was out too). No desperate need now. If he's cheap (and it would seem, he isn't), take a chance and let him prove himself. No need if he's expecting to come in and command an important position (and salary) when there's still so much to prove.

Think he'll be the performance director Craig Levein was calling for. It won't please the Celtic fans to have a Rangers man in there but I can't think of anyone remotely near his level of ability that would take the job