liquid_football

I think there's still a place for Law in the squad, albeit not as a starter (and with Tait signed on a 3 year contract, I think Law himself will be aware of that). He's never been a world beater, but he has been relatively solid for us over the past few seasons at right back. During our very poor spell at the end of McCall's reign, he was one of the few players who didn't hide and continued to run his guts out. We're going to need squad players with a good attitude and work ethic this season as we don't have much depth in the team, and Law fits that bill. Chalmers on the other hand...

Hamilton and Inverness are deservedly topping the table at the moment and both have far less money to spend (and much smaller crowds) than we do. They're both very fit sides who play a passing game - though they're prepared to hoof it long when required - and press agressively when they don't have the ball. They're also very well organised, both have kept their shape well in any game I've seen them play in so far. That's a reflection of good coaching. Year on year reductions to our budget were bound to have an effect sooner or later, but it doesn't excuse our poor start to the season. Like us, Hamilton and Inverness can't afford to buy in quality or numbers, so they've obviously worked hard on the training pitch and in the gym because that's an area they CAN compete - why haven't we done the same? It's so basic, but 7 competetive games into the season (we even had the advantage of playing Euro ties to help our match fitness) and most of the squad is still blowing out their arse by the 60 minute mark. Not to mention the alarming number of injuries players have picked up in training so far. We don't look capable of physically competing with the rest of the league, and that is more worrying to me than our league position at the moment. A lot of the off-the-park issues at the club are beyond the control of the board and coaching team, and therefore very difficult to solve. The same can't be said for the current coaching and fitness regimen - and it needs to be looked at ASAP.

Judging by reports on their site and ours, negotiations have been going on for a few weeks, so I'm sure McCall already has a few players sounded out as a replacement. Wouldn't be surprised if we announce a signing in the next week or so. Good piece of business for the club, though I'm sad to see Anier go.

Even if we were to offer Ainsworth a generous contract (by our standards), I'd imagine it would still be a lot less than he was on at Rotherham. I'm sure he would like to stay, but if it means taking a 50% pay cut or something similar, you can understand why he's keeping his options open.

I said 3 goals in 19 appearances, you're the one getting hung up on 'starts'. I'd be hoping that anyone we signed could make an impact from the bench when they weren't in the first 11, which he didn't do for United last season. McFadden had a poor season. I wouldn't argue that. But he did spend a lot of it playing in midfield or behind Sutton, whereas Goodwillie led the line in every game he played, so it's no really a fair comparison. Faddy at least created a few chances, whereas Goodwillie's link up play was terrible whenever I saw him.

His league stats for United were 3 goals in 19 games (9 starts 10 as sub) - piss poor, especially with the creative players they have setting him up. Also this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7N0dlcOFyk

He's been transfer listed by Blackburn. A loan is probably out unless we pay his wages (we're skint) and a transfer fee would be involved unless Blackburn were prepared to let him go for nothing (unlikely).

McManus for me. Made some crucial tackles and was fairly solid. Lasley had a good game too, one of the few in a 'Well shirt tonight.

Nike would never deal directly with us - we don't have the financial clout. We could theoretically end up wearing Nike kits if we had an arrangement with a third party (similar to our agreement with Puma/Genesis sports at the moment) but that would mean wearing basic teamwear templates - Nike don't do bespoke kits for their smaller suppliers to sell on. Dundee Utd went down that route and their last few kits have had no character or class.

Good to see Erwin back on the bench ater talk of him missing the rest of the season earlier in the year. Hopefully he'll get a little game time before now and the end of the season, though I'd imagine with the important games we've got coming up that might not be realistic.

Kerr could be decent - he's no bad in the air and fairly solid in the tackle - but his positioning and decision-making are truly woeful. That would be fine if he was playing alongside an experienced pro who could organise the defence and keep him right, similar to the Craigan/Hutch dynamic a couple of years back, but alongside Cummins, who's learning himself, it's inevitable we're going to ship goals at some point. McGinn's goal is case in point - he watched McGinn cut right across him, but chose to watch the ball instead and ran into an area where he had no hope of getting to it. I know not everyone on here rates Page, but he's miles better than Kerr in my opinion - but obviously not in McCall's. As for why he's here, I'm pretty sure the fact that we're no paying his wages has a lot to do with it.

I wouldn't lose sleep over it. Typical lazy journalism from the Evening Times, no actual quotes from the player or agent just scuttlebutt and 'expert testimony' from Bob Malcolm...

Having seen it a couple of times, the 'flicking out of the leg' which everyone seems to be focussing on seems more like self-preservation to me. He's in mid-air (it's not like he can get out of the way), he sees Paterson tanking in towards him, and his instictive reaction is to brace with his trailing leg. If Paterson had ran into him, Randolph could easily have landed head first. I'm glad Paterson wasn't badly hurt because it looked like a sore one, but if the charge against Randolph is for 'violent conduct' then surely Paterson should be cited for dangerous play. There was no way he was getting that high ball, but he still ran straight at Randolph. No different from a high boot or leading with the elbow when going upfor a header in principle really.

Hammell for me. Good support and distribution going forward and the only one in the back four who looked composed (and capable of marking anyone) tonight. Should of had a goal too Totally agree with those above about Ojamaa getting subbed though, crazy decision.

Injury apparently. Didn't seem to be limping or in any obvious discomfort though. My guess would be that he pulled an imaginary hamstring to avoid having to deal with McCall, the players or the media at full time. The announcement got the biggest cheer of the night anyway.

It's a strange move for him really, was surprised myself when I heard. I'm sure he'll be getting almost EPL wages, but I would not want to be a player at Blackburn at the moment...

You all beat me to it

Rhodes signed for Blackburn just before the transfer window shut

I think we might struggle to make top 6 this season. Seventh or Eighth would be my prediction, though I'd love to be proven wrong. Having said that, the whole newco situation has got me thinking about the long term for the club, about how we can build towards future success while working under financial constraints. As a result, I would condsider this season a success if we can bring through the young lads who have been on the fringes of the squad for a while and give them the game time they need to develop. The last time we had to rely on youngsters due to shaky finances, Faddy, Pearson, Hammell, Clarkson, Quinn et al rose to the occasion, and provided important transfer revunue for the club when they moved on. Things very unpredictable at the moment, but I think that may be a blessing in disguise for us, though things will undoubtably be a bit rough in the short term. We've done well with a very strong starting 11 for the past few seasons, but we really need through some new talent and give Page, McHugh and the like their chance to stake a claim if we want to build on our success IMO. If that means we have a mediocre league campaign (by recent standards), I'll not be too fussed. Given we're in the Champions league, can expect a decent cup run and won't have to put up with 'ra peepul' this season, I think they're will be plenty of reasons to be cheerful even if we end up in the lower half at the end of the season.

You want to talk about financial responsibility? For decades we have built our top league around a business model where most of our revenue stems from two clubs, who in turn are rewarded handsomely and get to dictate terms as they see fit. Now, for the first time, our fans have a chance to vote for change, and help to establish a league that is both fair and finacially self-sufficient. In the long term, that's far more 'responsible' than a panic 'yes to newco' vote would ever be, even if that means sacrifices will need to be made in the short term.

If the board vote yes, they will be implicating the club in the biggest case of tax avoidance and malpractice in Scottish football history. By voting yes, the club is not only condoning cheating, but is actively participating in it. And that is fucking shameful. I would support this club if we were skint and playing in the third division. I'm not sure I could continue to do so if we give 'The Rangers' a get out of jail free card for next season. Integrity must come first. No to newco.

Aye, it was mentioned briefly on the news today that HMRC are seeking to bring their own administrators in to handle the liquidation, it seems as though D&P are going to be given the boot. Hopefully HMRC will then chase them for cash too as they've clearly been putting money from the club that should have been going to creditors in their own back pockets since February. HMRC would be mad not to seize Ibrox, they have every right to as the main creditor.

"But that would be the end for Scottish football — there certainly wouldn't be any TV deals" Strictly speaking, this isn't a lie, yes, but unless McCall has a magic crystal ball that reveals the future it's hardly truthful either. It's conjecture pure and simple, and reactionary conjecture at that. Whether you agree with McCall or not, these comments are inconsiderate and poorly timed, given the clubs concerted efforts to try and appear impartial on this matter. I would bet that Leanne Dempster for one will be just as annoyed as most of the folk on here that McCall has seen fit to wade on on this one.

Out of all our out of contract players, Hammell is probably the most likely to sign on again I think. But if not, Paul Dixon would be a tidy replacement. Other than that, not many decent targets from that list, and even fewer realistic ones. Hayes isn't outwith the realms of possibility, but I'd imagine he'd get better offers elsewhere. McPake and Suso Santana would be decent steals, though again wages might be an issue. Best piece of business would probably be Greg Tansey, in practical terms. Can't see him playing week in week out, but he would bolster the midfield and give us another option at set-pieces.

Craggs was brilliant today, didn't put a foot wrong. Glad he signed off with such an assured performance. Thought Hateley and Clancy played well too.