Kmcalpin

A very poor performance and an abject lesson on how not to play Rangers. Stuart McCall got his tactics wrong and Michale Higdon should not have been playing up on his own today. Very few passmarks in my book with the exception of Michael Higdon who worked hos socks off with absolutely no support. Jamie Murphy was playing all over the place and the scouts watching him will know that he can be used far more effectively than we're using him. Chris Humphrey didn't play well but in fairness he received rotten service from Lasley, Jennings and Hately. Once again they failed to play the quick ball. On one occasion KL dallied and dithered and eventually passed to him with 4 blue jerseys surrounding him. What was Chris meant to do? The defence (in particular the full backs) was awful with big Hutch being the least culpable. Rangers won because they worked harder to close us down, because they put more effort and aggression in and because they showed self belief. Where oh where were our senior players today? They let the younger lads down by giving them no direction at all. Still we are sitting second and have had a good start. We won' t play as badly again for some time I hope.

Thank you... a bit of common sense at last. I've been saying this since he first signed with us. My greatest fear today was that we would play in a 4-5-1 formation with Higdon as the lone striker. We have only one recognised first team striker on the books and thats Michael Higdon. He was left far too exposed with the midfield not linking up for knock downs and Jamie Murphy was nightmare to play with - all over the ship (in fairness probably playing to instructions). He gave Higdon no support whatosever. I ask you what striker can play well under those circumstances? Time to get off Michael Higdon's back. We need to give him a strike partner to play alongside and a back up to slot in as and when required. Unil then he won't be effective. Of our 5 league goals this season how many have been scored by strikers? Two (40%). Its not rocket science. Jamie Murphy is a winger end of.. so play him there.

I'm no lawyer and so won't attempt to asess the Bill in detail, but it strikes me that some of these offences are already covered under other existing legislation. Given the media headline coverage I thought that the Bill was dealing purely with religious sectarianism in its broadest sense ie it wasn't being restricted to football matches. I don't see why it can't be made to do so. Sectarianism at football is only part of a wider problem in Scotland and culprits are not 90 minute bigots. The Scottish Government on this occasion has decided to side step that very controversial and potentially vote losing issue. Football may be the most obvious manifestation of religious bigotry but its only the tip of the iceberg. If the SG had been serious about tackling it then the Bill would have applied to to society in general. That, in my eyes is its biggest failing and amounts to a fundamental and fatal weakness. One other point about about offensive communications (presumbaly the internet) - my understanding on reading the Bill is that someone could still spout offensive religious bile on the net but as long as it was simply offensive and NOT likely to cause fear or alarm then it would be ok. Quite apart from all this it will be very interesting to see just how the Police apply it.

So lets get this right...despite the media coverage and deep rooted problems of bigotry in our society, the Bill is not intended to eradicate sectarianism but rather improve behaviour at football matches? Am I missing something here? Imagine if you will 2 yobs sitting half cut and opposite each other in a railway carriage, both making offensive sectarian remarks to fellow passengers. One has a football scarf on and one doesn't. The former is going to a match and the latter has no interest in football. Under this intended piece of legislation the football "fan" would be committing an offence whilst his fellow yob wouldn't be???

Couldn't have put it better myself Andy.

I'm glad we've now got some real debate going on this very importnat issue. No doubt the price of membership is important to most folk but hopefully the discussion will mature and move on at some stage to the bigger picture of the future direction for MFC. Still this has to be debated first.

That is indeed the problem Alan. Too many folk on here speculate without knowing the facts. I suppose I've done it myself though. Theres a lot more to a football club than is reported in the media or in this case on the Boards.

Fine in theory, I'm all for more fan involvement but we have to be very careful. I'd prefer to appoint a Board and Chief Executive and let them get on with the business of running the club. If you ask our support about catering or stewarding or ticket costs you might end up with 3,000 different views all of which would be correct. Some would threaten to stop attending FP because the cost of Mars bars in kiosks was being increased by 4p a shot instead of 2p a shot. Thats the reality of it. Also most fans don't know the full facts behind stewarding, catering or whatever and would not be in a position to make an informed decision. Fan involvement is fine up to a point but we should be careful what we wish for. I hope too that any new scheme takes into account current shareholders' investments. Most will already have invested hundreds and perhaps thousands of pounds? Will we be given our money back and asked to pay £300 (or whatever) as a new member? Will the holding be automatically transferred and if so what benefit will shareholders receive as opposed to ordinary £300 investors? All legitimate questions and I know the club is researching all these details. All that said, it would be great if the ordinary fans did have more of a say in MFC.

I'm keen to help out but must apologise as I just don't understand what you're suggesting i.e. the above. Is anyone else confused.com?

Rangers away or Dunfermline away. Personally I'd love to avoid the Pars on day one. A real banana skin.

Agreed. I'm very surprised there's been so little debate about it on the Boards. This is the future of our club we're talking about here.

Yes thats basically true. Football clubs require "working capital" especially over the close season and this is very tight for most clubs. I think JB provided that safety net in terms of a soft loan. The SPL require financial guarantees and a "working float" is to meet that requirement. The £750 k mentioned by Leeann Dempster in the Herald fulfills that function if I'm right. The SFA / SPL / SFL are notoriously slow in handing out payments and I believe we had to wait months for our CIS Cup cash. No doubt the Scottish Cup monies will also be slow in finding their way to the FP bank account. Thats my take on it anyway - if anyone knows better then fell free to update us.

Without trawling through the fixtures list two games immediately come to mind. The first was a dire 0-0 draw at Rugby Park later in the season in an important encounter. On paper you'd have thought he could take the game by the scruff of the neck but in truth did absolutely nothing. The second was in a Scottish Cup replay at Paisley which we lost. That night he didn't show up until the final 10 minutes when it was too late. Two games where he could and should have provided the vital spark but was anonymous. One of the reasons he left Ibrox was that they reckoned he was too lightweight and disappeared whren the going got tough. Again, on paper you'd think he'd make a good Championship player but again has failed to cut it on 2 separate occasions. If push came to shove I could probably cite more examples.

Good post. We need a a hard working box to box player first and foremost in midfield. That would provide Higdon with some support for knock downs and give our wingers much needed space. Last time round Stephen Hughes simply didn't turn up in too many crunch games when he should have been head and shoulders above everyone else on the park. We cannot afford passengers.

One of our major flaws last season and it was very noticeable in the Cup Final (substituting Hammell for Hately).

Heard that Peter Innes has beebn released - any confirmation of that anywhere?

I've been saying exactly the same thing for years Al and been given pelters for it. I like all MFC teams to be hard physically. Not cloggers or hammer throwers, but guys who can hold their own and not be bullied. If the opposition (including both halves of the OF) have big physical guys then I like to think we won't be bullied or intimidated by them. I noticed Catweazels Ring Piece mentioned Morgano Gomis. Now there's a guy who isn't big but is as tough as nails. The likes of Keith Lasley, Steven Craigan and Steve Jennings have all been flattened by him in 50/50 challenges. What we now need is the right guy to partner Higdon up front. Someone solid physically with a bit of pace would suit us nicely.

Aye, midfield is all about finding the right blend. Although the three of them are slightly different, Jennings, Lasley and Hately are all basically defensive/holding midfielders lacking in pace who are rightly cautious about advancing too far or or too fast in case they have to retreat a fair old distance. This leaves the lone front man in a 4-5-1 formation very isolated and overly dependent on the wingers for service.

Good post and very observant. Take the Cup Final - if our wingers received rotten service or none at all who would provide him with the ammunition and support if he was on his own up front? We need a box to box central midfielder to support our striker(s) and pick up second balls. Can Michael Higdon play on his own without much support from those behind him? We need a Giles Coke type of player to fulfil that role and bring out the best in Higdon. .

My thoughts exactly. He had a good first season but a poor second one in which he frequently went missing, especially in big games. He's played in the Championship twice now and hasn't cut it that level. Undoubtedly has talent but unable to to turn it on consistently. Playing very well once every 10 games or so doesn't justify a contract in my opinion.

Well we've lost Sutton & Blackman/Jeffers - two first choice strikers and Casagolda who was brought in as back up. There's no indication yet that Bob McHugh or Gary Smith are ready to make the step up. Whilst we might have 2 adequate stand ins at right back we haven't had an out and out right back for a year or two and its shown. Lasley & Jennings are too similar in style and neither is able to back up our strikers.

As things stand we need a right back, centreback/left sided defender. box to box central midfielder, left sided midfielder and 3 strikers, including a big mobile guy who can play on his own up front. That shopping list may of course change as more players leave the club.

Looking forward to this one. I've never been to Dumbarton's new(ish) ground before.

I'm not surprised. He was what I'd call a reasonably typical young Aberdeen (or Hibs) player. Lauded by all the newspapers he was "one of the best young players to come out Pittodrie/Easter Road for many years" (also true of the Young Brothers, Darren Mackie, Alexander Diamond, Danny Lennon, Billy Findlay, Graeme Donald and many many more). However any time I saw him play he never really impressed and I could never fathom out what all the fuss was about. That said he may have improved since I last saw him play.

Yes, some bus companies did hike their prices. Thats private enterprise for you.