dennyc

Exactly this. Well said. Spot on.

Hearts way round that was to charge the lower tier as a lower category but charge the Platinum price for the upper Tier. I would imagine that very few Hearts non season ticket holders would be forced to buy Platinum Seats which is what effectively was forced upon Motherwell fans once the lower section was sold out. A huge amount of the home Platinum seats were likely allocated to ST Holders anyway so were not a factor. But it all fits the League rules if you want to screw away fans.

I think Hearts did that a couple of seasons ago. Charging more for the upper section than the lower. There was no stewarding of who sat where once in the Stand so it became a complete shambles. Folk paid for the lower section but sat in the upper section and refused to move, resulting in many of their fellow fans being punted to the lower section having paid for the dearer seats. Nearly got really out of hand. I think Utd did something similar as you suggest. Their additional con was to close the turnstiles giving access to the lower level ( where prices matched the home fans) and insist that all Motherwell fans sit in the upper dear and pay the higher price. If I recall correctly their were no concessions in the upper tier and the police actually threatened to arrest Motherwell fans who complained. So I think a split might be possible, but it would need to be properly managed and might be more trouble than its worth.

I think there is a League rule.....there certainly used to be....that visiting fans cannot be charged any more than non season ticket home fans. For the same level of seating that is. I think we stick to that principle. If we are asked to pay £30 for a seat at Tynecastle then so should non Season Ticket Hearts fans. Whether Doncaster and his pals enforce that rule when it involves the Old Firm (and others maybe) is another matter. And of course if you can fill your ground with your own season ticket holders, then the impact of that rule does not really affect home fans.

Solholm took a knock against Aberdeen and was hobbling a wee bit in the second half. Pretty sure after his performance last week that he would be in the squad if fit. Pity, certainly looked to fit in well beside Ojala.

If St Johnstone had wanted away fans to attend our game they could have simply approached the Local Authority. They would not have been refused. Nobody else was at that stage. Might even be the same Local Authority Dundee had to approach for our visit. Saints chose to keep us out. Ross County were not refused the week before our Saints game. Same as us with Hibs visit.....again the week before. So precedents established. And how about Airdrie as an even earlier example. It was up to individual Clubs to apply. Some did. Some did not. Some did not want to. Hearts could easily have requested that a limited number of Celtic fans be allowed in for their opening League game, but chose not to. Hearts I understand as they could fill all the available seats with their own fans. So no financial loss. Selfish but understandable. I would love it if we could limit visiting fans because we needed the seats. Sadly not likely to ever be the case. Other Clubs did allow visiting fans that weekend so the CoVid Level was not a factor. No matter how you want to paint it, Rangers and Celtic are not the only Clubs who were/are at it. And if I can watch the game this weekend without donating a penny to Rangers, all the sweeter. Until the Authorities mandate that a set % be set aside for visiting fans nothing will change. Especially as that change would require the OF to sign up to it. Not sure Hearts, Hibs or Aberdeen would either.

And St Johnstone? Was that not after we were allowed in at Airdrie in the Cup.. And after they had fans at County for a League match? My point is that it is not just an Old Firm thing. Other Clubs use the system to their advantage no matter what level we are in. It was evident even during the League Cup. Under the rules Clubs can pick and choose. Many do.

It's not just an Old Firm thing. In fact others set the example before them. Also using the Red Zone requirement as a reason. Hearts v Celtic and St Johnstone v Motherwell, for starters. For the advantage it feels it gives them at the time. Hearts and the Old Firm I get. They can fill their entire ground with their own fans so don't lose out financially. But Saint Johnstone? Could Rangers have come up with a different solution? Of course they could. But they don't have to. No point in getting upset about it.

At present I really do think SOD should be first choice. If Patterson did not play for Rangers he would not be getting hyped up to the extent he is. Compare his media to that of Doig at Hibs who in my opinion is every bit as good, and has much more first team game time under his belt. Patterson may well turn out to be a top player but it is very early days. Ironically the player who is keeping Patterson out of the Rangers team I think now also qualifies for Scotland. According to Fifa and Uefa that is. But we have a Home Nations agreement that none of the four countries will select players who qualify purely on residency, if that player was born in any of the other three countries.

Other than his involvement in the goal do you really think he played that well? From what I saw he ran about a lot but seldom passed to a Scotland player and his crossing was terrible. Admittedly though, he was not really tested from a defensive point of view. All about opinions I know, but I was not overly impressed. Maybe he was just a bit rusty having played only once for Rangers this season but I did not think he was an upgrade on SOD.

Non vaccinated are far more likely to catch the virus and pass it on. Non vaccinated are more likely to become seriously ill or die when they get the virus. I think everybody can agree on that. But it is not purely about the non vaccinated attendee. Non vaccinated are more likely to be hospitalised (Lots of stats published showing the dominance of non vaccinated admissions at present). When hospitals become overrun people die or at best operations/treatment for other conditions are cancelled. The bigger picture is the thing here, not sitting in your wee seat at Fir Park. The scenes first time around when doctors in places such as Italy and the US had to decide which people to let die because hospitals could not cope or provide ventilators were harrowing. The UK almost got to that stage. I don't think any Government is wrong in trying to ensure a similar situation does not happen here as the virus continues to evolve. Those that can be vaccinated and choose not to are not only endangering themselves, they are endangering the lives of vulnerable people, directly or indirectly. I think that is selfish. I'm not supporting that vaccination should be enforced, but if people opt not to be vaccinated as is their right, then I have no problem with them being excluded from specific events. That is the choice they must make.

The tackle was out of order and Carroll got exactly what he deserved. If that reckless tackle had been on one of our players we would have been screaming at Collum if he had not produced a red. And for all we know, his Assistant maybe had a clear view and immediately shouted "Red Card". I detest Collum but I find it ironic he is getting questioned for actually getting a decision correct. There are plenty of shocking decisions to focus on rather than correct ones. I think if a red had not been issued, then it would have resulted in Carroll being cited anyway. And I have not heard of the Club lodging any appeal.

How is Starfeld playing. Games I have seen he looks like the new Raphael.

I think the line up listed by Wellsince makes sense and is an option. Given our squad and allowing for flexibility with scope on the bench to change things to a more attacking or defensive formation as the game dictates. I think starting with a three in midfield immediately hands the initiative to our opponents, exhausts the players concerned and eventually leads to us hanging on/ chasing the game late on. We mostly got away with it against the lower league Clubs although Airdrie held on assisted by the fact that for some reason we only brought on one substitute. It's all about opinion of course but I would rather see us adopt a more cautious approach to begin with, even if that means sitting a winger on the bench. There is no shame in winning a game in the last 20 minutes which is the time under the current set up where I see us running out of steam as our midfield disappears. Hibs put an extra man in midfield and dominated the second half. I don't believe that was just about quality off the bench. No matter what formation is used by any team, it does always comes down to the quality of player. You need exceptional players to make 4-3-3 a success. I don't believe we have that quality. Perhaps 4-2-3-1 might suit our squad better, protecting the defence but also allowing scope for the likes of Woolery to play in a wide role. Let's see what happens on Sunday. Hopefully I'll be proved wrong

Agreed we don't have quality in numbers but at least put the extra body in there so as to limit the space and freedom our opponents always seem to have. Also it might mean our guys are not shattered after 60 minutes. Not saying they are not fit or talented, but the amount of work they are being asked to do is massive. If that means sacrificing one of the three forwards for an hour then so be it. Any successful side makes sure the core of the team is secure before becoming more expansive. Sometimes it not just about putting the best individuals out there from the first minute ( as in squeezing in three talented forwards). Why not start with only two with the scope to switch to three in the last 30 minutes when most games open up? On Sunday Davidson, McCann and Craig will be licking their lips at the thought of bullying our midfield three and so controlling the game. As happened so many times of late when they have faced us. We need to change it.