DoofersDad

Regulations prohibit passengers from unnecessarily distracting the driver's attention. If the operator is telling the club that singing distracts the driver and it's either no singing or no bus, then no singing it is. As above, one really needs to know a bit more about what has been said by who. Off course, banning should only happen if individuals have been told not behave in a particular way and they do so regardless. I would certainly hope that the club would do all that it can to encourage youngsters to travel to away matches, particularly when these youngsters have been doing so much to help create a decent atmosphere home and away with their enthusiasm.

Well, East Kilbride must be grateful they have avoided County in Scottish Cup

The general pattern of demographics in the Highlands is for rural depopulation and an increase in population in Inverness. I am sure there are more Ross-shire folk moving into Inverness than the other way round. I'm one who bucks that trend as I have a Dingwall address.

The inconsistency between referees is for the SFA to deal with as is the almost universal failure to apply some of the rules of the game. For instance, there is sometimes so much holding in the penalty area that it looks more like an American football scrimmage and yet it is rare that penalties are awarded when defenders are manhandling opponents to stop them getting to the ball. That could be dealt with at a stroke with instructions to match officials supported by retrospective action from the compliance officer. This lack of leadership at the top must put folk off from taking up refereeing and as a result the general standard is poor. But I wouldn't wish to be too critical of referees because I do think that some of the criticism they get for incorrect decisions is very harsh. Far too often they are pilloried for errors which can only be seen to be errors in hindsight and sometimes with straight white lines drawn across the TV screen to judge an offside decision or with repeated slow motion footage from different angles relating to a foul. Sometimes it would be nigh impossible for a referee to be certain an infringement has occurred, whilst at other times, just like the rest of us, they make honest human errors. What is needed is for the ruling bodies to take steps to ensure that the laws of the game are applied consistently. Referees making honest mistakes should be supported against criticism. Surely, only by consistent application of the laws of the game can you really identify those referees whose performance is poor and who need to improve if they are to officiate at the top level. Can't see anything positive happening with the current jokers at FIFA and the SFA.

He's scored 15 for Barnsley this year. I trust Barnsley tell Leeds where to shove such a derisory offer.

SFA rules state 3. Awards to Players, Officials and Match Officials The Association shall present a medal or a souvenir in such forms as the Board may decide to each of the players, to each of such substitutes as are eligible, the Manager or Head Coach and to the match officials, in the Final Tie. It seems, therefore, that the SFA Board can decide which players might be eligible but does not define this in their rules. In contrast, the FA rules state:- (b) In addition to the FA Cup, The Association shall present 30 medals to playing staff and officials of both Clubs in the Final. This means that English Clubs have absolute discretion on who they award their medals to. A player in England who was banned for the final but who made the kind of contributions throughout the competition that Warren and Raven made last year would undoubtedly get a winners medal. I seem to remember that not so long ago, the winning club in England gave one of the medals to the kit man who had kept all the kit in good order for over 30 years - a lovely gesture. It does make sense to allow the clubs to decide themselves who deserves the medals rather than being dictated to by a bunch of power crazed little Hitlers. Having said that, the power is ultimately in the hands of the member clubs of the SFA. Surely they could push through a change to the rules on this?

Wouldn't we all? But the point as it relates to Pyro has nothing to do with slavery. Quite the opposite in fact, because anybody who rebels in this context risks losing some of his (or her) freedoms.

...but we didn't and it isn't. We are now facing the very real possibility that County could finish above us in the league and progress further than us in both cup competitions. Hopefully that dreadful prospect will motivate the manager and the team to play routinely with the purpose and intensity shown in that last 20 minutes. In the meantime, I am in the "good luck against Celtic but may you get thoroughly gubbed in the final" camp.

I think there are a few mixed messages in here. Urging youngsters not to bring pyro into the ground is not being against the youngsters, it is actually being supportive. It is simply reminding folk that bringing in pyro risks criminal sanctions being taken and nobody wants that to happen. To some though, the use of pyro will be seen as an act of bravado - an act of rebellion against authority. At the end of the day, if they get a criminal record, they will only have themselves to blame. Regardless of what the dangers may or may not be and what happens in other countries, the bottom line is that it is illegal here. If you don't like the law, campaign to change it, but don't break the law just because you don't like it - it aint worth the risk. One of the sad things about this debate is that it sidelines the one simple thing that really would make a difference to the atmosphere in grounds - the reintroduction of terracing. It has been absolutely great to see the youngsters jumping up and down and hear them chanting at the front of Section E these last two games - it has brought an atmosphere that the football on display abjectly failed to do. But the irony is that the youngsters would be able to do that far more safely if the bloody seats weren't in the way. There is also the issue that standing at the front has annoyed a good few folk who had to move to other seats because their view was blocked - that could be a real problem with a bigger crowd. There is no doubt that properly designed terracing supported by common sense crowd control is perfectly safe. By having everyone in that area standing and allowing a bit of movement within the area it really helps to bring together those who want to create a noise. The reintroduction of terracing is long overdue and would make a far bigger impact on the creation of atmosphere within grounds than the relaxation of legislation on pyro could ever do.

I think you are generalising too much. People from across the socio-economic spectrum like to watch football and whilst some people can comfortably afford anything the match day experience offers, there are others for whom just paying the admission price represents a concious financial decision. The pay what you can initiative gives this second group the opportunity to attend the game and support their team. The club should be grateful for whatever they can afford and for any vocal support they give. But the pay what you can initiative also allows others who are maybe less inclined to attended regularly but could afford it if they were. This group of folk are more likely to pay a little bit more for their ticket and to spend on the peripherals. If what they experience makes it a good day out then they will likely be back. It therefore seems to me to make clear sense to have pay what you can matches from time to time. Of course, a key ingredient in this is to make sure the main event inspires folk to come back for more. Sadly that ingredient was missing on Saturday and it will now be even harder to persuade folk to give it another try after witnessing that.

Well, he's employed by the club so I think at the end of the day the answer to that is "yes"! I'm not for one moment suggesting that the club should approve what he says, after all, part of the role is to communicate with the media. But he does have to be accountable for what he says. There may be a clause in his contract about not criticising the club in general or any individual employee in the public domain. In any case, if the Board perceive him to be making statements which are not showing the club in a good light or are in any other way felt to be inappropriate I would expect the Chairman to have a word in his ear.

It really is great news. For such a key player to make such a long term commitment to the club can only be a positive move in encouraging others to stay. With Meekings and Tansey also signed till the end of next season we have 3 top players who provide a solid base to build the team round. Hughes' management skills will now be seriously put to the test in seeing how many of those out of contract at the end of the season will want to stay. Top of the list for me would be a couple of the keepers, Draper, Doran, and Vincent - although there are several others I would also want to retain. I would also love to see Storey sign but his situation is less straightforward.

Surely this evidence tends to suggest that we do have the players to match the better teams in the league, but are tactically inept against the poorer sides.

Nothing ironic in it all. Quite the opposite. These are two very different kind of issues. It is perhaps strange that the club is very reluctant to release certain information which one might think should be in the public domain, whilst the manager makes public criticisms of players which should best be kept behind closed doors.

Bear in mind that season ticket sales are up this year on the back of last season. Crowd figures include season ticket sales whether or not season ticket holder actually attended or not.

We started very brightly and a lot more positive than normal and I was thinking that we could be in for a really decent game of football. Then when we didn't get anything from that early pressure we steadily reverted to the more usual negative approach to the game. There was a bit of ambition in the last 10 minutes but by then I was resigned to the view that if we could hold on for a draw, it be more than the performance as a whole deserved. Hughes talks about looking for a player in the transfer window "to unlock the door and come up with a bit of magic". That sounds fine, but his actions and tactics seem to reduce the chances of anyone we currently have unlocking the door. Having Williams freed up from left back duties should allow him to play a freer more attacking role but it just doesn't happen. Time and time again when he does receive the ball wide, he steps inside and plays the ball across the park or backwards. He should be taking players on, getting behind the defence and getting balls into the box. We used to regularly enjoy the sight of the full backs steaming down the flanks to link up with the midfield on the overlap but that is now a rare, late in the game, chasing the game tactic. Last week after Mutombo's excellent performance Hughes criticised him for show-boating. Yesterday when several players were not contributing much to our attacking play, he left Roberts, Foran and Sutherland on the bench rather than mixing it up a bit. It is all so depressingly negative. What really frustrates me is these tactics might be OK in a team that lacked skill and flair but we have players who do have skill and flair. This skill and flair is being consistently stifled. The lovely team goal Vigurs scored against Stirling was a great example of what we are capable of when we get the ball wide and move the ball with pace. But how often do we do that? Time and time when the ball is moved wide and we see the space in front, our brief pang of anticipation of a break down the wing is stifled by a foot on the ball, check back and pass back inside again. We should be playing to our strengths but instead our play is dictated by a philosophy that wants to pass the ball through the middle of the park. It isn't working and it's boring.

Who's proposing namby pamby stuff? If there are players who are not pulling their weight they need to be told and I am sure Yogi does just that. But lets keep it in the dressing room and on the training pitch, please. Personally I get a little cheesed of with Yogi saying that he's an honest guy and then using that to justify some criticism of the players. A bit of honesty in admitting where he's got it wrong himself from time to time would not go amiss. He's the manager and the buck stops with him. He should shoulder the blame and support the players in public and give them a rollicking in private when appropriate.

It would be a different matter if Yogi made the pies himself.

Neither do the courts.

And it was only when the crowd thinned out a bit that you could move enough to check whether it was urine or blood.

I always thought that someone who initiated a dangerous chemical reaction in the midst of a group of captive youngsters was called a chemistry teacher

Can't say I agree with that. Sure we had much more possession but in the first half we gifted them possession at the back on 2 or 3 occasions and they put a fair bit of pressure on us and won several corners in the 2nd half. Their pressure gave us the opportunity to break with speed but for the most part we did our usual of passing the ball across the back and providing the opposition the opportunity to regroup and maintain a good defensive shape. Stirling defended well and If it wasn't for the fact that their shooting was so woeful we could have been seriously embarrassed last night.

Two great goals. One a superb individual effort from Mutombo and one a lovely team goal with a composed placed finish from Vigurs. But what a lot of utter dross for most of the rest of the game! Mutombo was the one bright spark and regularly beat defenders and looked to make things happen. Fon Williams was never really tested but nobody else was better than average. Early on we lost possession at the back on 2 or 3 occasions and were lucky not to be punished for it. The 2nd goal showed what we can do when we get the ball forward a bit quicker, get behind them and cut it back to players following up.. So why does there seem to be such a reluctance to get the ball wide and and attack opposition full backs? At least we won and move on to the next round. We will need to play a lot better to beat Motherwell and we will need to play a lot better to get anything out of Partick at the weekend. One final point. After the first goal, Yogi seemed to be having a real go at Raven on the touchline. What on earth was that all about?

That's interesting. The logical extension of this is for there to be a ban on flares being taken in to grounds but allowing clubs to sell approved flares within the ground for use in a defined manner (e.g no throwing). In that way there would be a good atmosphere, a guarantee that all devices let off were safe and there would be a small additional income for the club.

I'm with Kingsmills on this. I note what Alex says but I would have thought that had Yogi been quoted out of context he would have very quickly put the players right on what he said. It is, of course, important that players are honest with the club about how they feel injuries are progressing. If the player thinks they are fit enough to play, the manager can then decide whether or not he feels it is in the interests of the team to take whatever risks he perceives exists. From the player's point of view, they will know that coming back too soon can risk worsening their injury and they will be taking professional medical and physio advice on just what they can or cannot do. In most cases, players will not want to risk their long term health by coming back too soon. However, if they had possibly a one off chance of playing in a cup final, they would be prepared to take a greater risk provided the manager also felt it was in the team's interest to take the risk. I therefore see absolutely nothing wrong with a player saying they are not fit to play in a 4th rd replay against Stirling when they might have said something different if it was the final. If any player is not being honest about how his recovery is going, then that would be a different matter, but it is really poor if the manager is putting pressure on players if professional advice is that they are not fully fit to play in a match. Lets face it, these lads will be looking for an offer to renew their contract or to attract offers from other clubs. They need to be on the park demonstrating their skills, playing the game they love. What they will not want is a team mate coming into the side, doing very well and preventing them getting back in the side when they are fully fit. I really find it pretty hard to believe that if a player had recovered enough to feel fit enough to play, he would not be knocking on Yogi's door to tell him so.