DoofersDad

What about all the people (particularly women) who haven't been battered due to having no Old Firm matches, which are renowned for huge spikes in violence? Is this question Rhetorical ? Do you really expect me to answer it, Or are you just showing your own views ? How am I supposed to know about violence to women, children or anybody else. I suggest you contact Glasgow home for battered wives or the Police. Lawrence, if you wonder why the "lynch mob" sometimes have a pop at you, this illustrates the reasons perfectly. You put a post on here and whilst you acknowledge it is not a popular view you provide no evidence to justify it. Then when someone responds with a valid reason why they think you are wrong and suggests you consider that point, you come sniping back with a "do you really expect me to answer it?" Well actually, I do. Renegade has provided evidence for his statement relating to a situation which is actually pretty well known. It is evidence which suggests that the longer the new club with the same old moronic support is kept away from the top flight of scottish football, the better it will be for the women of Glasgow. Of course you are entitled to air your views but please have the good grace to give some reasoned argument to support what you recognise to be an unpopular view. As I said before, whether some of us like it or not, the Rangers will be in the top division all too soon. It may not be as quick as you would like but it is arguably a lot quicker than it should have been. And it is not the wider footballing community which is keeping them out - they are being kept out because of the way they went about their business. They are lucky their assets were not split up and sold off to different parties. The new club has acquired a fully functioning infrastructure for way below market price whilst creditors of the old disgraced club are left with next to nothing. The Rangers are lucky to be in Division 2. To suggest the footballing community should somehow connive to bend the rules to allow them into the top flight at the expense of clubs who play by the rules is not only nonsense, it is offensive nonsense. I would respectfully suggest you either come up with some sound arguments to support your bizarre suggestion or withdraw it.

Bale will be worth £85m if some club is prepared to pay that for him. Any club doing that will be looking at the huge sums that are available from television rights, sponsorship and commercial spin off of success at the very highest level. If they think Bale can make the difference to the team to give them the level of success which will give them the kind of additional income which makes £85m spent on Bale seem like a good investment, then they'll pay it. The sad thing is that no player should be worth that sort of money. The fact that such sums are even considered illustrates the inequalities in the modern game. Such sums can only be talked about because the top clubs get a huge worldwide audience with the result that fewer people then have the appetite to watch their local teams.

I doubt the people of Paisley would thank you for saying they are part of Glasgow. My point is that not having the Rangers in the top tier is positive in many ways. There may or not be financial arguments for them being in the SPL but IMHO there are far more footballing arguments for them not to be. They will be in the top flight all too soon because at the end of the day, their financial backers and huge support will buy success. But in the meantime, lets enjoy the breath of fresh air that pervades the top flight at the moment and enjoy the improved opportunities that smaller clubs such as ITC and St Johnstone have of earning a bit of success. And let's enjoy the fact that the big Glasgow derbies this year will involve Partick and not the Rangers.

Glasgow have 2 teams in the premier division - no need for a 3rd.

Presumably they're saving us for the cup finals and other bigger games at the end of the season.

It'll need to be fire retardant in case one of the flares gets caught up in it. And as we are no longer allowed to take bottles of water in with us there'll be nothing to douse the flames.

1. Birmingham 2. Worcestershire 3. Mid 70s 4. Black Isle

Call me old fashioned, but if you have 4 divisions, what's wrong with calling them divisions 1,2,3 and 4?

Yes, but the survey was about what the clubs are saying and not what the actual position is.

Maybe he'll go to both.

Good planning, son. Definately going to yours!

If it's your Birthday (and many congratulations, by the way ) then it should be the family doing what you want to do. Bring them along to the game instead! In any case, taking part in a haggis eating competition seems to me the sort of thing you should do as far away from the gaze of family as possible. Take it from me, he'll thank you for not being there. Mind you, I'll not be at the game - also for family reasons. One of our sons (not Doofer) is getting married down South on Saturday with kick off also at 3.00. The sacrifices we make for our children, eh. I just hope it's appreciated!

No idea what she was doing under that car - she only had clearance to work on Land Rovers.

And it looks as though he's jost got plenty satisfaction.

Yes you did.

It is difficult to conclude what tonight's results say about the state of Scottish football. Both Rosenborg and Malmo are currently lying 2nd in their national leagues half way through the season and both have only had 2 defeats. They are therefore both pretty decent opposition. It was a great win for the Saints over two legs but there is no way Hibs should have lost by that kind of margin. Perhaps the lesson here is that European places should be determined by league position only.

Why? Have you got a bye?

Both set ups have a Doncaster that does not perform very well.

What was he doing under a car? Well, being a 33 year old coming out of a night club at 3.30 in the morning I expect it is a simple case of him being exhausted.

Total waste of money. In many ways, playing the small teams is much better preparation. We know from cup results that competitive matches against these sides can be hard even when the team is match fit and has knit together well. Pre-season is about trying different things out and that is best done against a small team who will not hold back and who are anxious to get the kudos of embarrassing the big boys. These friendlies therefore have a much more competitive edge than a glamour tie would. But then it depends on your perspective. No doubt to fans of Arbroath, tonight's match was a glamour match and they'll be talking for years about the night when the great Billy Mackay graced them with his presence and scored 5!

The sad thing about cycling and athletics is that history tells us that you never really know who is clean and who isn't. These are sports that men and women excel in because they have a particular physical attribute rather than any particular skill. Obviously there is an element of technique and tactics but essentially it is the physical attributes which are the key thing. These athletes have to train exceptionally hard and pay strict attention to diet etc but having done all that, the use of performance enhancing drugs can add that crucial extra edge to a performance that makes the difference from being just one of the pack to becoming number one. Every time someone does something remarkable we question whether it is genuine or not. It's a shame. We should get excited about performances like Mo Farah this week when he ran a 1500 metres just to gain some speed practice for his 5,000 and he breaks Steve Cram's British record. It's astonishing really and most of the guys are probably clean but I'm afraid the cynic in me prevents me being too excited about these things. For me, there's far more to admire in Phil Mickleson's magnificent final round in the open where supreme skill, good judgement and nerves of steel saw him through. Performance enhancing drugs to make him stronger, faster or to keep going longer would have been of little help to him at Muirfield.

A bit of firefighting needing to be done in the Aussie camp if you ask me.

Proper 5 day test cricket really is something special. It may not be to everyone's taste but it is an acquired taste and one that is definitely worth acquiring. It helps if you've played the game a bit just so that you can appreciate what is involved with a hard cricket ball whistling past your ears at over 80mph and the rest, Cricket is an extraordinarily complex game in the 5 day version and it is not just the skill of the players, but the tactics and the drawn out drama that is so enthralling. Enjoyment of the game comes with some level of understanding of the way the ball behaves differently depending on the type of bowling, the age of the ball, the condition of the pitch and the atmospheric conditions. The batsman has to judge each ball and decide whether to risk a scoring shot or whether just to block or leave it. The captain of the fielding side will be placing fielders either to make scoring more difficult or to provide more men in positions to catch. Often fielders are absent from a large part of the outfield to tempt batsmen to hit into that particular area in the knowledge that the shot risks catching the edge of the bat. Then as the game progresses and time becomes more of an issue it becomes a question of do you play for the win or settle for the draw and this changes the dynamics of the game again. The whole game is a psychological battle, a tactical battle and a battle of skill. To me there are two very appealing aspects of the game which make cricket pretty unique. The first is that whilst it is a team game, at any one point it is largely the bowler pitted against the batsman and the pressure is very much on the individual taking centre stage at any one point. The other aspect is that for most of the game, it is often not clear who is winning and who is losing. People will have differing opinions as to which team has the upper hand at any one point but it is often not at all obvious. The picture can change suddenly with 2 or 3 quick wickets but then as a stand develops so the balance changes again. It is fascinating the way the game swings back and forth and in a close game this creates a building tension. In football we may feel a bit of tension as our team gets battered in the last 10 minutes whilst we grimly hold onto a single goal lead, but believe me, that is nothing compared to the nervous tension of defending a 300 run lead in the final innings and seeing the opponents total get closer and closer. As the Australians so brilliantly demonstrated, it's not over till it's over. The drama and tension of a good test match is without comparison to anything else in sport IMHO.

An argument has always been that despite the fact the matches are shorter, the women still need to spend as much time and effort in training to reach the top. There is also the argument that because they are not as powerful there are are likely to be longer rallies because there are fewer aces and outright winners. In the old days there was some truth in that because the men played a serve and volley game and there were very few baseline battles. Games last far longer now despite the fact that there are tie breaks in all but the last set. I do think that sometimes men's matches are too long and women's matches are too short. In the women's game there is sometimes little opportunity for a good comeback and players can be blown away before they have really settled. In order to restore some equality what I would like to see is 4 set matches with a slightly longer tie break set such as best of 21 points if they ended at 2 sets all. As well as introducing equality, it would also end the ridiculously long matches that sometimes occur and which can be disruptive of schedules and which seriously disadvantage the player in the next round. As for prize money, I do think that equality is inappropriate because more people come to watch the men play than the women. Where there are separate tournaments for men and women (Queens and Eastbourne for example) there is more media interest and sponsorship money for the men's event. If prize money was awarded pro-rata to paying customers, media rights and sponsorship deals for separate mens and womens events, then women would not get the same as the men. Women footballers may play for 90 minutes but they don't get paid the same for the simple reason that women's football does not attract the same level of paying customers. It is simple market forces. The problem with Wimbledon is that in general it is difficult to differentiate between what the paying customers are hoping to see and therefore market forces cannot be applied to the allocation of prize money. So whilst equality of prize money may be inappropriate, I don't think there is much that can be done about it - although deducting £10 for every unnecessary grunt would be a step in the right direction.

The season hasn't started and already we've gone on a cup run.