CaleyD

:029:

Frasers by a country mile. Zibi was partially unsighted and only a fraction of a second away from making the save. Frasers was a result of his own utter incompetence and attempts at show boating.

Subs have to be looked at on a game by game basis and I think any manager who goes in to the game with a set time in mind is treading on dangerous ground. Games like that against Gretna last week allow for substitutions on the basis of getting players off the park to rest them up for your next encounter and will rarely make any difference to the outcome and will not be made for that reason. Games like that against Aberdeen where your having to chase a deficit call for early subs, not necessarily because any player is having a mare of a game, but because you need to be changing to a more attacking formation/set of tactics to try and claw things back. Even at only 2 goals down with 10 minutes to go you're rarely going to over turn a two goal deficit with subs, and although he had them prepared to go on before the 4th goal went in the subs were a pointless exercise at that late stage in the game. Had we only been one down and the team performing well then you could argue that you had nothing on the bench with which to improve the situation, but at two down you have to make changes to enhance your attacking position and give the changes a chance to work.

Rightly or wrongly, the club would have a very good argument that Harts actions have caused them professional embarrassment, regardless of where and when the offense took place. This would, in my experience, be sufficient reason for them to expel him on the basis of misconduct. For those of you out there who have a Gross Misconduct clause in your contract of employment, you would do well to read it very closely as I would be almost certain that it also covers your actions outside working hours.

With regards the racist comment, they'd get one warning from me and I'd leave them in no doubt whatsoever that if they repeated it then I'd report them. I'm not easily intimidated so the thought of becoming a target for their abuse (or worse) wouldn't really enter my head, but can understand it being a concern for some people. It would probably be more sensible to take a trip to the toilets and have a word with a steward out of sight of the offender to prevent any backlash. Getting in to an argument with them serves no purpose and you only risk landing yourself in bother, especially if you make threats or use colourful language to put your point over. Although admittedly this is probably what I'd find myself doing :029: If the stewards heard or saw nothing then I'm not sure what they would do, but I would expect them to follow up on the complaint and have a word.

Minibus for Rangers will be leaving from the Innes at 9.30 in the morning. Still seats available for any last minute stragglers who want to head down for the match - just stick your name on here so I can expect you in the morning or drop me a call on 07956 408874.

That is about the angriest I have felt coming away from an ICT game in a long time. Not because we weren't playing well, in fact I thought we played some great football over the 90 minutes, but because all the hard work counted for feck all due to schoolboy errors. The 2 penalties we conceded were needless beyond belief, the passback to Fraser from about 40 yards out was asking for trouble even before Fraser tried to get cute and take on the forward and our entire team sat back for the fourth and almost invited the goal. If you took a video of the game, edited out the goals and showed it to someone and invited them to predict the scoreline then they'd be coming up with results of 3 or 4-1 in our favour, not the other way around. Unlike the result against Hibs where we were simply unlucky, last night we got what we deserved for making the mistakes we made...we were robbed by our own team. I also thought someone might have mentioned Frasers antics in the second half when he seemed to take to wandering up to the edge of the centre circle....I was just waiting for someone to lob him to really put a seal on the nights events. Starting to see a streak of arrogance in Fraser when he's on the park and it's not something that is doing him any favours.

It all comes down to one thing IMO, and that's the fact that the fans are angry and upset and nothing is being done to reassure them that the things are under control, be that performances on the pitch or the actions of those behind the scenes and upstairs. The sooner the club get back to communicating properly and regularly with the fans, the sooner the constant negative edge to everything will subside. ICT are a nightmare when it comes to PR these days. I forget the last piece of positive press that come from within the club, and everything they touch or get involved with seems to get screwed up, so it's no wonder people are constantly complaining. We have nothing to get excited about and nothing to look forward too. It doesn't take much to communicate with the fans, to quell the rumours and quash the conspiracy theories. By burying their head in the sand over things and making no comments they only serve to fuel the belief that things are amiss.

Another point to note is that we only get 5 subs (one of whom must be a keeper) and the U21 rule does not apply in the Cup.

Taken from League Cup Competition Rules Link to Rules

Aye...that's the reason Deano ain't been getting a game...the bookies have paid off Brewster in order to keep the lad on the bench.

Aye...Elder Boy and his mates provide some hope that at least the next generation won't all be beer swilling louts who are unable to hold their drink (literally) :015:

[attach=1]

Paatelainen is a left sided player so I can't agree that Zander is a better player in his position. Saw Paatelainen a couple of times pre-season and he actually stood out above other regular starters with his performances and I hope he makes it back in to the squad. Unfortunately when push comes to shove however, the club will have to weight up the cost of keeping him on, especially if he is slow to make it back from injury. One thing in his favour is that when he gets back to training he'll have Brew in charge of him and there's no better manager in the SPL for driving player fitness.

With Craig Brewster voicing support for a change to the U21 rule what are other people's views? Brewster believes that the rule is hampering his ability to reward players who have been performing well in training and in the reserves by giving them a place in the first team squad due to the current rule and wants to see it changed. I'm in two minds about the whole thing, I can understand that managers want to have the best players possible available and I also agree to a certain extent that players should be there on merit and not simply because the rules say they have to be given a chance. However, will a reduction in the number of compulsory U21's do damage? For the majority of teams these young lads are doing nothing other than warming the bench for 90 minutes every week and it can't be doing them any good in the long run. I wouldn't want to see the U21's simply forgotten, but their must be a better way of supporting them without it hampering the managers job. Thoughts?

If you base your expectation on the money players are being played then I take it you never expect ICT to win a game because our opponents are on larger salaries? Also, I'm not saying that money doesn't matter...of course it does, but when it comes down to it there are 11 guys out there on the pitch and I don't base my support for them on the wages they are earning. They all get the same support, and they all get judged on a level playing field in terms of performance after the 90 minutes. If Niculae and Wyness perform equally well then they get judged the same. Wyness doesn't get 8/10 and Niculae only 6/10 just because he's on a larger wage...that would be preposterous, IMO, but it seems like that's how many are judging him.

Is this the one on Golf Rd just around the corner from Pittodrie?

Just remember not to tell anyone that TM4TJ p!shed himself on the way home :015:

Still plenty of seats left for the minibus going to Ibrox.

Aye, that Social Club they have there really is a great place and the welcome was equally impressive. Bar prices were good and I actually had to check that they had charged me for everything on the first round I bought because it seemed helluva cheap. Across to the turnstiles and the welcome was just as pleasing. The old fella standing outside the gate entertained us with stories of stands going up in blazes as we stood outside to finish our cigarettes and the lass on the turnstile at least attempted to stifle her laughter as it looked like I may get stuck!!! No hassle with the Stewards either...they did tell us to sit down a couple of times, but they weren't jumping down your throat for it every two seconds and at least allowed you a couple of minutes standing to celebrate the goals. IN fact, I got more hassle from Naelifts (grumpy old buggar) telling me to sit down than I did from the Stewards :015: Thanks also to the Steward sitting next to me for keeping us informed of the scores elsewhere....I bet most people think that earpiece he has in is for security radio and not for listening to the match on the wireless :023:

The shot from Skelton was going safely wide...the only thing Fraser did there was concede the corner :023:

The car comparison was not two different models....it was the same car bought for two different prices. i.e. A Niculae getting paid ?1000/week compared to a Niculae getting paid ?4000/week. Both would perform the same and the argument only arises in terms of "Value for money" Johnboy and others have said that had Niculae been on a lower wage then he would be getting praised for his contribution. I personally don't see why the cost should be brought in to it when commenting on his performance. Of course it's a "beg to differ" scenario. I just want to understand why it is that some people see his performances as acceptable and some don't. I've already shown that for some people it is based on the wage the guy is getting and the high expectations that we were as guilty of creating as fans as anyone else. For me, his wage has no baring whatsoever on how his performance is judged.

2 men buy the exact same car. First guy pays 20,000 for it, and second guy pays ?18,000 for it. Both cars will still perform exactly the same regardless of what was paid for them. Should the first guy be going back to the garage and demanding his car perform better just because he paid more? Performance and Price are two very separate and distinct arguments. I would not say we are getting value for money from Niculae at the moment, but that's not to say that I don't think he is performing on a par with his peers.

The difference between Livi and Gretna is that if/when it all comes to an end, Gretna won't be paying off debts to the tune of 18p in the pound. Their spending will have no impact on anyone but themselves and if Mileson was to walk away he would be leaving them debt free.....plunging fast perhaps....but debt free all the same.

Not suggesting for one second he should be beyond criticism, but it needs to be balanced and some people seem intent on exaggerating the negatives and not balancing their argument by acknowledging the positives, of which there are plenty. All the hype prior to his arrival is half the problem IMO. Many had built him up in their minds as some kind of demi-god before he had even kicked a ball and he is now suffering the backlash of not living up to that. The "Value for money" argument is for the club to worry about and if fans wish to criticise on that front then they should be criticising the club for the manner of their spending. As far as I am concerned it matters not a jot what a player is getting paid when he is out there on the park. When a player comes in for criticism it should be in comparison to his peers and not based on the size of his wage packet. Depends on the comparison your looking for.... - In terms of contribution on the park I think both players are doing a job. - In terms of "Value for Money" then Cowie by a country mile. Which brings up the point...had we signed Niculae on similar wages, would he be coming in for so much criticism for his performance? As is often the case in life, you get two arguments that are at the opposite end of the scale and the truth normally lies somewhere in the middle. Marius put in as much leg work against Gretna as Wyness did, if not more. How many times did Wyness pick up the ball in the middle of the park and make a run at goal? Who was the first player off the mark to chase down the save by Mikey which was pushed wide and in danger of being kept in by Gretna? As I said above, 2 or 3 times Niculae picked up the ball from well out and made a run from goal only to find himself crowded out by defenders with nobody in support. If Niculae is as slow and unfit as people would have us believe then how is he able to make these moves, and why is it that others aren't able to keep up? Not saying he's the fastest of players, but I think his "weakness" in the speed/fitness department is being hugely exaggerated. And when you allow for the fact he's constantly playing between the centre of the pitch and the box then it's no wonder he's being hooked early with tired legs. It's very much the same scenario for Bayne when he starts a game and finds himself being hooked near the end, and it's for the same reasons....they both put in the miles. Perhaps if we started Niculae alongside Bayne and allowed Bayne to do the legwork for Niculae instead of Niculae doing it for others then we'd see more goals from him.