Sorted

Settle down! Don't understand why Peterhead have suddenly become world beaters who are playing (and have been for a while now) at a standard of football way below their ability. Hamilton are a significantly better side than Peterhead. Don't get carried away after Tannadump my friend, there are many battles to come and Saturday will be one of them. As for team, rest one or two but no more. All this squad rotation through choice nonsense is exactly that, nonsense. Unless of course you have two world class players for every position like Chelsea of Man City. We don't so we shouldn't mess too much.

I don't think we do badly in the old media coverage. In fact I would go as far as to say we get considerably more air time/column space that other SPL clubs such as St Mirren, St Johnstone, Kilmarnock, Hamilton or Motherwell. At times, due to our location, short history, success and the high profile of our manager, we are viewed by oterh teams fans as the darlings of the media. Granted it's always the same when you play one of the OF but certainly (aside from 5 Live not even mentioning our result yesterday on their early bulletin) we have had huge coverage of the fantastic result yesterday. For me, we do ok.

Someone sent this haddie a map!

Don't necessarily think formation change is essential just that it is good to have options. For me, 5-3-2 or 3-5-2 really does give width and security especially if you have forward minded full backs with pace which I think we now have. Good to vary.

As you can tell I'm backward! Proctor/Gillet full backs option 1. Hayes/Gillet option 2. Looked fine on the preview!

Been doing a lot of thinking (steady now!) since the WC. Right from the start, the pundits in the know said that (thankfully ) there was no chance of Engerland winning the tournament playing such a rigid 4-4-2 formation. The lack of imagination shown by UK coaches is also often mentioned as a weakness. Spent a little time looking at our squad and have come to the conclusion that we, potentially, have a considerable number of 5-3-2 permutations which, depending on the opposition or venue could be pretty flexible. Appreciate it's very early in the season but wonder if we could have a more defensive: Esson Tokely Innes Munro Proctor Gillet Cox Duncan McBain Rooney Foran Or a more attacking: Esson Tokely Innes Munro Hayes Gillet Cox Duncan Ross Rooney Foran Am I alone in thinking that 5-3-2/3-5-2 could be the future? For me the best Scottish club side of recent times was MON's Celtic team that humped Ajax in Amsterdam. Who would have thought that Didier Agathe and Bobby Petta could have played wing back? Three solid central defenders made it possible and there pace caused problems. Am I talking shhiiiite?

Didn't make Saturday but have now watched game twice on Sky + (different perspective of course!). Like most, I thought we were great for the first 25 and should have taken the lead. From then on, pretty much dominated and could have been on the end of a doing but for Esson and the woodwork. He is a top class keeper that we picked up for nothing, perhaps one of the best pieces of business we will ever do. Why we signed JT, I'm not sure? My only point of disagreement with many posters is McCann. He doesn't do it for me at all and IMO was the most at fault for the goal, even more guilty than Cox. It was far to easy for Plastic Paddy to go past him and if his intention was to shown him the inside then surely he should have pushed him back at the same time? Contributes little going forward and offers nothing in the air. For me, I would play Bambi ahead of him every time. Gillet on the hand looked great. Granted he possibly didn't give enough protection for the CBs but he really does look pacy and a danger going forward. 5-3-2 anyone? All in all a decent enough start. Just a pity we didn't sneak one early on!

Well done Steven Sl ater!! Now what is it with erseholes who have to open hatches before they need to, stand up before they can get off and moan like banshees all for the sake of being ten seconds ahead of the rest?:_nonono:

If JH isn't fit for Saturday, I would be delighted to see Nick get a start. For me, we are far too focussed on age in this country at both ends of the spectrum. Always questioning wether someone is ready for a chance due to their youth and equally, too ready to right off experienced pros because of their age. The only way a kid like Nick will ever know if he is good enough is to play. What better opportunity to test him than the first game of the season, limited expectations, no league pressures and a full house?

There is a huge difference in being confident and having totally unrealistic expectations. For me, you guys are very firmly in the latter camp and setting the season up for disappointment. If we finish anywhere from 11 up and reach the QFs of the cups, I will be delighted and view it as a fantastic first season back to build on. Of course I'm hoping for more but I don't expect it and won't be over critical if the guys don't make it.

4-4-2 Not favouite players but IMO, the best: Esson Tokley Dods Mann Hastings Wilson Cowie Robson Foran Brewster Nicaule Subs: Brown Pavels Christie Dargo McBain Want to wait to see how the likes of Tuffey, Hayes and Rooney do in the SPL before passing judgement.

Shambolic! What kind of thought process do you have to go through to think that re-signing a guy who you used to buy Lee Naylor (?600k plus Mulgrew), abject failure at his new club, humiliation at Southend on Sea and shocking in the Granite City, is a good move? Time to revist the prediction table !

Ok, I'm being a pedant but we don't have a JD Sports, JJB doesn't exist any more but we do have a DW Sports (Dave Whelan the former owner of JJB and chair of Wigan). That said, you still can't get a number on a shirt :_shocked2:

I feel confident about our ability to stay up. Anything else is a bonus!

Tremdous. Credit to the guys and the coaches. Looking through the whole squad, the stand out for me is that Rangers only have one inclusion. Who would have thought that ICT would ever have twice as many players in any Scotland squad as one of the OF?

1. Celtic 2. Rangers 3. Hibs 4. Dundee Utd 5. Hearts 6. Motherwell 7. St Johnstone 8. Aberdeen 9. ICT 10. Hamilton 11. Kilmarnock 12. St Mirren

Whilst being delighted to see a keeper of JT's ability and potential joining us (huge credit to TB) I didn't have the goalkeeping position particularly high on my list of priorities for the forthcoming season once Ryan had signed a new deal. To be honest, I would have been happy to go ahead with Ryan and a young back up in the knowledge that if injury occurs we would be able to bring in emergency cover as has been done on many instances in the past. Have we shelled out significant wages on a position we didn't need to? I would have preferred the finances went on a more experienced versatile defender and target man. All said, it is good news that we have been able to lure him North.

The issue for me is would be able to secure the likes of Rooney and Hayes on a three year deal? As I see it, the club have done exceptionally well to hold on to these young guys who will, no doubt, have huge ambition to play at a higher level and earn significantly more. If the club had try to tie them up for a longer period then it is possible that they may view this as unattractive as it increases their price should any potential buyers come in, something they may view as negative. Equally, for the club, if things go wrong this season then they are not burdened with extra worry. For me, it's a perfect situation for both parties.

I can't agree with this. I have a good friend who is a massive arab. He knew Eddie Thomson fairly well and has a few nice stories and fond memories of him. He has not got any time for his son whatsoever and has told me some stories to explain his reasons. I've not read the article but as far as I am concerned Steven Thomson is a class A phallus. I'm 100% with KB in this. ST is an attention seeking **** who has sponged of his father for years and unlike his very successful sister, has never managed to do anything of any consequence on his own in business. The story, confirmed to me by a good few Arabs, goes that when his father gave him a wad of cash on the sale of the MNN chain in the middle of the property boom, ST announced that there was no way he was putting his money into this "risky market" but instead he was going to invest in prestige cars!!!!!!! Like they don't drop in value??????? Only a matter of time before he blows it all and his greeting face disappears from the tabloids. Meantime, suggest he gets his own house in order and concentrates on generating income form his own city by encouraging a few more of the faces that went to Hampden to go to Tanadump more regularly.

He did not gain financially by hiding behind his partner. He claimed the wrong type of allowance - he would have been perfectly entitled to claim other allowances had he made the relationship public. There are perfectly obvious reasons why he didn't want to make his relationship public and gaining financially (which he didn't do) wasn't one of them. What did you mean when you said that you wanted to see his 'life dissected in front of us all' by 'third rate tabloids'? Do you think that his sexuality would be considered irrelevant in that dissection? I don't think you should prosecute someone like David Laws for what he did - he didn't financially gain from it, it needs to be investigated by the proper authorities first and at the end of day he claimed the wrong allowance rather than fradulently claiming. He certainly isn't in the same league as Margaret Moran, Elliot Morley, Jim Sheridan et al who certainly deserve to be prosecuted. I don't think it was wrong that he resigned - he couldn't carry on in his job while being investigated for this. I hope he's backin government soon. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Reading the thread back, I accept I appeared a tad over zealous in my desire to see Laws humiliated. You are correct to point out that his sexuality would have become the issue within the tabloids and this would have been wrong. My need for retribution comes from being sick and tired of our elected representatives quick simply taking the ****! David Laws is the straw that broke the camel's back, particularly his self righteous condemnation of others when he was guilty of similar. No matter which way you look at it, he did gain financially. To the tune of ?40,000. If he was, and he may well have been, entitled to other allowances he should have claimed for these accordingly. In the benefit system it is still a crime to claim the wrong benefit even if your need is justifiable and your claim amounts to a similar entitlement from another pot. Incorrect claiming is no defence. Ignorance of the law is no defence. Sorry guv I didn't know it was a 30? More than that, he is a highly intelligent, articulate man (who is a huge loss to the government) that should and did know what he was doing was incorrect. Done.

"insulting to their relationship" - what does that even mean? Your entire post reads like a 16 year old trying to sound intelligent in an English essay, pure word salad. Laws claimed the allowance he did because he didn't want to declare that he was living with his gay partner, for his own personal reasons. If he had declared that he was living with his partner he'd have recieved just as much allowance, probably more. What you actually said was "As an individual, I show no homophobic tendencies but I hope that this despicable individual is ripped apart by as many third rate tabloids as possible, his life dissected in front of us all". That's a clear reference to Laws personal life. If you didn't have any interest in his sex life, why did you prefix your statement with 'I'm not homophobic BUT'? Referring to Laws behaviour as - "insulting to their relationship", is perfectly clear, I would suggest. For clarity I believe it merits this description as he saw it fit to hide his partner as it suited his desire for financial gain. This, I would suggest is insulting. Certainly if I was to ask my partner that I deny their existence as it suited my pocket or lifestyle, they would feel insulted. As for "word salad", I bow to your linguistic genius. For the record, I prefixed my statement to avoid being accused of being homophobic. How ironic it is that I should now stand accused of such traits simply for wishing that a thief be exposed for what he is. His sexuality is irrelevant. Perhaps you would now wish to comment on why Laws and the others who "worked the system" should be exempt from prosecution unlike the rest of the public? Simply put, why should a young woman in Edinburgh be prosecuted for claiming benefit on the basis of not having a partner as it suits her lifestyle to do so yet an MP who claims allowances on the same basis be exempt?

All of it is pathetic. You sound like a complete political illiterate, who is in the midst of a classic internet tantrum because you didn't understand that the Liberal Democrats under Clegg have more in common with the Conservatives than with the Labour Party under Brown. Your reaction to this is a foaming mouthed, keyboard smashing binge every time the coalition does anything. There are members of Parliament and members of the government who committed worse offences than this under the old expenses regime - the Defence Secretary recently paid back tens of thousands of pounds, for example. The most pathetic part of your post, though, is where you state Lovely. So it's not enough that he'll pay the money back, that he's lost his job, that he's been outed against his will in front of his family and friends but you want to get your sweaty mitts on the scurrilious details of the mans life? You sound like a creepy pervert to be honest. Oh and anyone who ever says "I'm not racist/bigoted/homophobic BUT" invariably is. Your analysis of my personality and character is considerably off beam. And, as a tolerant, well balanced individual, I take no exception to your personal insults but put it down purely to an inability to sustain/support an argument/discussion with factual material. Let's try one more time. At no point in time have I protected Brown's government or refused to castigate those who have pilfered the public purse. Irrespective of any individual's political colour it is, in my view, criminal. I think I am clear on this issue. What is particularly offensive in the Laws case, is that he sat back and said nothing whilst the review was being undertaken. Worse than that, he attacked, in writing, a number of fellow MPs who had breached the rules (committed a criminal offence in the real world) whilst painting himself as whiter than white. Some of the individuals he attacked (including Oliver Letwyn) are now his colleagues in the CONDEMs. This is a totally unsustainable position. The other angle is Laws use of his sexuality as a means of attempting to justify his crime. This is particularly pathetic coming from one who is a member of a party that was founded on liberty, freedom of expression and tolerance. It is a smokescreen and nothing else. Laws, without doubt, is a highly intelligent and articulate individual who chose one path over another. If his priority had been to protect the integrity of his relationship he could have done so quite easily by choosing not to claim the allowance which prohibits payment to a partner. They are partners and to attempt to say they otherwise is insulting to their relationship. The rules are clear. The individual chose to break them and was caught. Your stance on protecting intelligent, well rewarded individuals is surprising. I stand by my desire to see those who exploit public cash for personal gain be subject to prosecution. They cannot use their lack of resource, intelligence or need as an excuse. It is peculiar, to say the least, that you wish to exempt such form punishment. Our society prosecutes those who cheat the benefit system, Repayment is not enough for them. Why should it be enough for the privileged? As for your final paragraph, I suggest you read it again. My desire is to see all cheating MPs subjected to full scrutiny and retribution. If our legal system won't do it then the media must. I have no interest in any of their sex lives, I leave that to you.

What a pathetic post. Which piece? The piece criticising the CONDEMs for refusing to sit on a panel with a busted flush? The piece criticising the CONDEMs for trying to dictate the membership of the QT panel? The piece seeking prosecution for fraud in the same manner that a "benefit cheat" would be subject to? The piece questioning the need for cash over the need for privacy? The piece reminding people of Laws sanctimonious press release attacking every MP who every misappropriated public funds whilst he happily swindled the tax payer out of ?40k? Or all of it? Would be interested in hearing the counter argument as opposed to why ....... because!

Great week for the CONDEMs. First they take the huff as they can't pick the panel for QT and refuse to go on with Alister Campbell (is their intellect that limited that the semi retired spin doctor merits such a stance?) then, the rising star of all things DEM, with behaviour traits more CON, grabs all the headlines. David Laws, a pathetic excuse for anything liberal or democratic. Caught with his hand in our purse, to the tune of ?40,000 (cheques payable to: My Boyfriend) the squirming multi millionaire justifies his behaviour as "a decent man in a desperate desire to hide his sexuality." What bollocks! All he had to do was not take the money. Full stop, end of. His sexuality was protected, his privacy safe and no intrusion. But no. The greed took over. Despite his significant wealth, his need for public funding was greater than his need for privacy. As an individual, I show no homophobic tendencies but I hope that this despicable individual is ripped apart by as many third rate tabloids as possible, his life dissected in front of us all and that the DPP (think that's what the PF in England is?) ensures that he is prosecuted for fraud. After all, paying back is not enough for a benefit cheat, why should it be enough for a CONDEM Minister? None of my desire for humiliation stems from his sexuality. It is the lying, manipulative cheat I want pursued. Anyone in any doubt should read the press release he issued on MPs expenses when others were being attacked. Hypocrisy anyone?

Off topic I know but what were you doing at a Tory Party Conference !