Kmcalpin

We may face several selection problems in midfield and attack. We don't know know the extent of MacDonald's and Blyth's injuries. Will Moult be risked again given his impending operation or procedure as its termed these days? Will Lucas be fit? Is McHugh banned? We may need to go with a 4-3-3 formation or with 2 wingers, with Cadden playing in the middle. All that said we should be too strong for East Stirling in any event. We have to win and win by a good few goals.

Thanks. Just watched the limited highlights and you're probably right in your assessment. We seem to have played some decent football with perhaps the final pass/shot just not quite right. The goal that we lost was disappointing as we seem to have been outnumbered on our right flank.

What do you mean? Like last week we seemed to have missed a barrowload. Still we won!

The way things are going we'll need to play a 4-5-1 formation with Mackin being the sole striker. Hope he doesn't get injured.

Presumably McHugh will now be suspended in midweek for 2 yellow cards? Is Cadden on the bench?

Good post. Protracted negotiations between the Society and our benefactor will no doubt be focusing on adjusting repayment terms based on transfer income. In effect the financial goalposts were moved 20 minutes into the game. That said, I don't know how much leverage Les can have given that he's the party who wants to change the agreement to his benefit. I'm a firm believer in cutting our financial cloth accordingly, but, as you say, there's a danger we may just cut it too tight. The situation we find now find ourselves in is that we're having to cut the budget just too quickly - in effect halfway through a rebuilding process. Its a bit like building a house and then changing the budget halfway through the construction. In order to install a water supply you have to do without electricity. The finished product is going to be a bit unbalanced. We have 3 wingers and indeed 4 attacking wide midfielders but not a single attacking central midfielder! What would an attacking central midfielder cost for say a year? £50-67K? Is that enough to risk the club's Premiership status? I know its not quite as clear cut as that but thats my point in essence.

I too quite like Laing, although he's been hampered by injuries and a loss of confidence. Before this, he looked promising but hadn't quite convinced me. I'm unsure of Kennedy - he can have a good game but can also be a bit of a bombscare at times. David Ferguson is an unknown quantity having only played a game or two at right back a couple of years ago. So, the ball is in Heneghan's court I'd say. I'm sorry that it just hasn't worked out for Louis Laing.

Don't forget that the likes of Alan Campbell and Dylan Mackin will be earning more plus most of the first team squad from last season will be earning a little more (commonplace in contracts that year 2 is higher than year 1.....). So the wage bill calculation can be complicated. I still feel that we are a necessary player down in that we have no senior attacking central midfielder in the squad. Surely every club needs one?

Thats about it Andy all I'd add is very healthily. No easing up when we're 4-0 up (ahem....).

Football managers are notorious for denying impending transfer acquisitions and then signing X number of players. We also hear regular weekly tales of players being out injured for 4 weeks or whatever and then making miraculous recoveries.

We should be looking for a 2 goal win at the very least to ensure we're in the mix for a best runners up spot. I didn't know until recently that a lot of part time lower league clubs train over the summer and thats why they appear fitter come the start of the new season.

Good to see this bid from Australia turned down. It would seem that Skippy is indeed happy to stay with us or at least thats the implication. In general though you're right Weeyin - some players want it both ways. The pendulum has indeed swung.

Thats fine as far as it goes, but what about the attacking central midfielder role (creative or box to box)? I realise that the club were probably caught cold when Pearo left but I find it incredible that we're going into competitive games in the new season without one, not a single attacking central midfielder. Now we may well sign one, even on loan in the next 6 weeks or so, but I reckon this is bad planning or more accurately a failure to plan.

He does need game time and I agree 100% with you there. However what concerned me was that although he was willing to run at defenders he was very very easily knocked off the ball and dispossessed. At the end of last season many of us had 2 concerns about his game 1) All too often there was no end product to his good leading up play 2) He was too lightweight and easily dispossessed. Now I can't speak about the first as on Saturday he never quite got that far. However he does not appear to have bulked up and gained more strength. If he is going to progress in the game then he has to address both weaknesses. Mark McGhee knows about these deficiencies and to his credit the lad does too.

I'm not entirely sure how the 4 best runners up are selected but it would do no harm to try to rattle in as many goals as possible. First things first though - we must win the tie.

Agree about the unsatisfactory policing. Don't be too hard on the club perhaps they are still waiting to hear back from the Police who knows? I think you'd be better advised to contact Police Scotland direct as they were directly involved. Why complicate matters by going through a third party.

We'll agree to differ on that Tweed and leave it at that. We reckoned Waghorn was off by about 2-3 metres at the instant the ball was played.

Not all the players played equally well or equally badly and that can happen in a game. In fact it most often does. The players that I mentioned were the pick of the bunch, although over the entire game I don't think they did enough to merit a MOTM award. McHugh for example started off very well indeed but tired quickly, most probably due to lack of fitness/match fitness. In the second half his influence was very limited as Rangers had a stranglehold on midfield. Had he maintained his first 30 minute performance for say 75 minutes or more then he undoubtedly would have been my MOTM.

A null vote for me. A few players showed up well in patches but none impressed over the whole 90 minutes. Probably the pick of the bunch were Heneghan, McHugh and maybe MacDonald.

A strange game today and I agree with many of the individual points made. Injuries and suspensions limited Mark McGhee's options, but I think mistakes were made off the field. Overall the gameplan of sitting back and hitting Rangers on the break almost worked but for some poor finishing. However for long spells MacDonald was left isolated with little support. Johnson played far too deeply. In general we defended far too deeply and lacked a bit ambition or perhaps confidence at times. From start to finish Rangers caused trouble on both our flanks. Had we been 3-0 up after 30 minutes or so it would not have been injustice but poor finishing cost us. By half time the scoreline could have been 6-3 to us. At full time it was about could have been 12-9 to Rangers. Rangers were the better team although both defences were shockingly poor. After the 30 minute mark we began to fall out of the game and that was certainly true of the second 45. Individually it was a mixed bag. Oddly enough given the chances created by both sides neither keeper was really troubled. Samson had a reasonably solid game but he really does need to communicate better with his defenders. By failing to shout he cost us at least 2 avoidable corners. The new boys showed some promise especially McHugh but he fell out of the game after about 30 minutes or so not surprising given his lack of game time. Looks a real find though. Heneghan had a reasonable game but both he and McManus were left badly exposed at times. Unlike others, I wasn't totally convinced of Tait as he was caught out a few times but that said he had little cover in front of him. Hammell had a very poor game and was caught out time and again. Cadden tried his best but has had better games. I wasn't overly impressed by Chalmers - his lack of pace was badly exposed. Up front Skippy tried hard but some of the service to him was appalling. Of the subs, Dom Thomas worried me. This will be a big season for him but again although showing some trickery was too easily bundled off the ball. Some pluses too though. We did create a fair few chances and played some decent football on the break and the new lads by and large acquitted themselves well. You'd think too that they have still to gel fully with their teammates. I really like the look of McHugh and think he'll be an asset when fully fit. My big concern continues to be central midfield. We are far too light there and surely we have to sign an attacking central player. On a side not a wee bit disappointed with some of Tam Cowan's comments on BBC radio about 2 incidents. I did not think it a penalty when the ball was blasted at Heneghan's hand at close range - does anyone disagree? Also the incident where Samson handled out of his box - the Rangers player, Waghorn, was clearly well offside when the ball was played to him and the ref was only "evening things up" as his linesman missed that. Many of us suspected that to qualify from the group we'd have to do so as runners ups and so it has transpired.

Not at all surprised about the attendance. Season tickets not valid; start of July holidays; and Rangers were the opponents - always worth a reduction of 500-1,000 on our support. Not a game to judge attendances on.

This wasn't always the case. In recent years, and I can't define "recent", this kind of predatory behaviour towards signing good young lads before they gain first team experience, has become more and more widespread amongst the bigger clubs, as they have extended their tentacles. I suppose too that young lads and their parents are also becoming more ambitious and dream of their offspring becoming the next Messi. No its not just you, its very frustrating.

Lasley's absence is an issue but presumably McHugh has been brought in as his long term replacement. Overall, though, as many have observed central midfield is very light and we need probably another 2 players in there. Of more concern to me is the lack of a replacement for Pearo. We do not have an attacking/creative midfielder.

There are fans and fans. Some want to know every detail and some only want to turn up on a Saturday to watch their team. Each to their own. In principle I think that fans should be given as much information as possible, if they want it ie its not rammed down everyone's throat. When the Society takes over members don't need to know everything as Al B has rightly pointed out. Members should be told important details and a bit more perhaps if they want it but don't forget they appoint a Board of Directors to run the club and it should be left to them and the club's employees to conduct day to day business without fear of interference.

No, most of us are not entitled to know. Currently the club is privately owned and as such shareholders, and not ordinary fans, have some rights as to the information they are privy to. When the club is taken over by the Society, as opposed to the fans per se, shareholders and members of the Society will be entitled to receive more information. Fans who are not members of the Society or are not shareholders will not be entitled to any more information. How the Society would play that I don't know. It may choose voluntarily to share more information publicly. Quite apart from the above, there is much detailed information which is sensitive or confidential and that will not and should not be available publicly. As regards transfer fees/compensation payments, very often the buying club requests that the fee remains undisclosed. If thats the case the information should not be made public. I don't know the details of Robbie Leitch's departure but its possible that Burnley have requested that if there was any payment, it be kept confidential.