CaleyD

The game was looking bad enough without the referee compounding the issue. I left today wondering if he actually realises that it's a foul to use your hand or arm to control the ball, I stopped counting after he refused the 4th stonewall claim for a handball. Other than the handballs, their was a challenge involving Black (where he got booked) where both players dived in to challenge for the loose ball. Both players lunged at the ball in identical fashion and both were guilty of having the studs up, yet the referee gave Black a dressing down and a yellow card whilst the Utd player walked away without even so much as getting a look from the ref. It should have been a yellow for both. He also "missed" our penalty claim when the Utd defender had both arms under Niculae's and wrapped around him holding him when the ball was played through to his feet about 12 yards out...it wasn't like it was a tug on the shirt and he missed it, it was a full blown bear hug FFS :015:

Not feeling defensive (don't think there's anything to defend :001: ). It's all down to progress/evolution of the site which has been brought about by the progress/evolution of the club and the team. However, we (Scotty and I) also realise that these things need to be "managed", for want of a better description, and that we don't always get it right. That's why if people have ideas and suggestions they should feel free to raise them and we will address them and, where practical, tweak things. One example is the lads in Section G who asked for a place where they could talk about their stuff away from the main forum. We were only too happy to oblige as it's not something everyone is interested in and it doesn't have to be talked about in the main part of the forum where other things get lost among their chat and their chat gets lost among other things. That's not an option for every little thing, but it may be that we are missing something in that regard and if so, then we are only too happy for people to be pointing it out.

I think Naelifts has hit the nail on the head. The only people who can make the site what they want it to be are the people who use it. If people have ideas for changes that they think will help improve the setup then we are all ears.

I find that quite hard to believe as I know Wyness is well settled up here, as are his wife and kids, and I don't believe he would want to move and would fight it out till the last to get a new contract.

Rossco - - - McGuire - - - Munro - - - Hastings Imrie - - - Cowie - - - Black - - - Paatelinien Bayne - - - Niculae

Not the best of games apart from the last 10 mins. First 45...we were poor, they were worse. Second 45....we got off to a positive start but seemed to be afraid to have a go at the goal and insisted on trying to walk everything in. Lost the goal against the run of play and it would have been an injustice if the game had ended with a loss. Marcus found himself in the right place at the right time and the ball fell to his feet and he had little to do but put it away. We squandered far too many opportunities today and the team seemed to be afraid to push forward. No point playing 5 across the middle when they're sitting on the toes of the back 4. Imrie.....what a signing, he would have got my MotM. Chases everything, not afraid to run at defenders (even ones twice his size), solid in the tackle and doesn't give up possession easily either. Duncan + McBain....our weak links today I'm afraid. Far too often they wanted to play the ball backwards instead of pushing forward. On a couple of occasions Niculae found himself in space up front only to see McBain pass it the other way and I think Duncan passed the ball back to the defence more often then he played it forward or even sideways. Niculae was crying out for someone to play off of up front in this match but got very little support from the midfield, and then when we do decide to take on another forward it's a straight swap and doesn't do anything to improve the situation. As for the decision to hook Black for Marcus.....totally baffling, as I said, Duncan and McBain were crying out to be hooked, so to take off Black who was having a decent enough game and move McBain inside to accommodate Paatelinien when he was having a bit of a mare just didn't make any sense whatsoever. A draw was probably a fair enough result over the 90 minute4s, but I thought we looked capable of snatching the win in the last 10 minutes....if only we had stepped up the pace with 20 minutes to go instead then we might have come away with the 3 points.

As a player, I like Hart. He offers a lot from the midfield and played a big part in getting us where we are today. However, there's little room for sentiment in football these days and we have other players who now offer what he did/does and there's little doubt we needed to slim down our midfield. Off-field antics aside, Hart hasn't done much in the last couple of the seasons, partly due to injury and partly due to other players keeping him out of the team, and for that reason alone it doesn't make a lot of sense to keep him on the books. His involvement with drugs last year is an easy "excuse" for people to throw about as the reason we are letting him go. I don't deny that it is possible, or indeed likely, that it influenced the decision, but the truth of the matter is that this team is moving forward and that is going to bring casualties among the guys who have been there a long time and been committed to the club....that's just the way the cookie crumbles sometimes and we can't afford to be keeping players on the books just because they've served us well in the past - What we need are players who will serve us well now and in the future.

I think the problem is that their was no "project" behind the scheme. Normally when people do a 'buy-a-brick' it's because they are going to build something and the bricks are included in that building so people can say "I helped pay for that" and it gives the purchase some meaning/feeling of ownership/belonging. It's a good idea, it's just about 14 years too late. However, I do look forward to buying a brick for the new stadium when we move in about 5 years or so :004:

I know, I just have zero tolerance for all the BS and buck passing that goes on. If as much effort was put into working with people instead of trying to blame others then we'd all be far better off for it.

So much for the line that "Police only get involved at a match if a crime is committed".....they are happy to step in and remove a pole from a flag, but should an away fan in the home end choose to cause a disruption then they aren't in the slightest bit interested....when are some people going to realise that the fans aren't stupid.

Meanwhile, back on topic...........................

Some flares, smoke bombs and a moderate pitch invasion. :004: Such comments (even in jest) have resulted in forum members getting police visits in the past.

-V-

We've had no trouble the last 2 years as I've cleared it before hand, and of course we have the new lightweight fibreglass pole which you couldn't do damage with even if you wanted too...lol

Caley4life, the only thing I can suggest is that you go over the head of MS as I know that support for the bringing of banners and flags to games exists further up the chain and they would be more than happy to assist fans with the logistics of using poles etc which are, as a rule of thumb, banned from most grounds due to the potential risk of them being used as a weapon (although you'd need one heck of a strong arm to be a threat to the away support from the North Stand).

No, but you get solid foam ones :blah01:

Provided the Artificial Surface complies to the FIFA Recommended 2 Star Standard and the SPL are satisfied that Hamilton can maintain it at such a standard then they will be allowed to use it in the SPL.

I think describing the commentary as "live" is pushing the definition of the word just a little :029:

I agree....I think this thread should be locked until it is scored....come on mods, get it sorted out eh? :015:

Congrats and all the best :021:

I could be wrong but I don't think we've technically signed McGuire yet. The last I remember reading about him it suggested that his loan spell was extended to the end of the season and he'd signed a pre-contract.

Your right Alex, it is very much "interpretation", but interpretation is often set by precedent and the SPL have set the precedent that having a compliant stadium can be accomplished with the provision of a suitable ground share agreement. In regards to how long that can be for, there's nothing to suggest it is limited to a single season...or any set period for that matter.

I'm not seeing the breach of rule Alex, can you expand?

It matters not what Mileson said....for years everyone used to spout on about the 10,000 seater rule being Scottish Parliament Legislation....not because it was fact, but because they had taken the SPL word for it and never thought to check for themselves. Telling people what they want to hear is what businessmen are good at, not saying it is right and you can be sure that Mileson would have told the SPL whatever they wanted to hear at that time, just as any other club would have....it makes life easy. Doesn't change the fact that the SPL, IMO, would not be able to back the "failed promises" argument as there was no contractual obligation on which to base that promise in the first place. Take a look at rule A2.5.4.....how successful do you think they would be in enforcing that after allowing us to return from Aberdeen part way through the season?....the whole rulebook is a joke. If the SPL don't want people p*ssing all over the rulebook year after year, then it's about time they got a lot of things nailed down. Until that happens then every team is going to pick holes in it if suits their own needs...right or wrong, that's just the way it is. P.S. It's all your fault we're having this discussion....I was happy with my one comment earlier on in the thread, but you had to take umbrage and challenge my normally well thought out arguments - That'll feckin teach ya :015:

Lifted directly from the SPL rulebook.... The rule book actually makes for more interesting reading than the information I quoted from the website earlier as it makes absolutely no reference whatsoever to ground sharing or having to have your own stadium constructed/brought up to standard within any pre-defined timescale. Again I ask....what is this rule that Gretna would be breaking by pursuing another season of ground sharing? Granted that they would need permission from the SPL on the basis of rule A2.5.3.2, but the SPL have already set the precedent by allowing them to ground share this season and nothing has changed to justify them denying it again for next season. I don't necessarily disagree that Gretna appear to be taking the p!ss and not bothering to get the ball rolling, but when push comes to shove that doesn't come in to it......not if you want to stick to the point of "the rules are the rules"......and certainly not if you want the league to be run with any kind of fair and consistent hand. If Gretna made any sort of undertaking in regards to their plans for building a compliant stadium then it would be deemed to be a "gentlemans agreement" at best, the SPL certainly have no rules with which they could cite it and point out any failure on the part of Gretna FC to meet any contractual obligations in regards to their membership of the SPL.