Rudolph Hucker

Good one.

no chance. And anyway, his fashion sense offends the luvvies. It’ll be Richard Foster, and it serves them all right.

More accurately, you were decent for the first 15 minutes or so. And in the LAST 15 minutes or so. And the highlights confirm that there was nothing wrong with the first goal. Apart from that, good post! You had 12 (TWELVE) in the entire game. Meanwhile we await Owen Coyle’s apology for his insistence that Oakley’s first goal came after a foul. But nobody’s holding their breath.

Don’t bother; nobody cares.

Ain’t this just delicious?

The main stand - now known as the Allan McGraw MainStand.

You did indeed and I’m not denying that at all. Just remarking that one of your fans was behaving like a headless chicken (to be fair, so was one particular Caley Thistle fan - maybe they should get together for Valentine’s Day and hurl hot pies at each other from twenty paces or something. Would make more sense than their output on here. )

Your panic-stricken P&B performance last Tuesday to Friday as you waited for the axe to inevitably fall on your Cup “run” was the stuff of comedy gold, but unfortunately you’ve now reverted to type as a waste of internet bandwidth.

Whatever gets you through the night.

We've just trousered around a quarter of a million quid from the last round, so we can put the feet up and concentrate on the league while you get a fraction of that for going out in the next round. Nice try though.

Should've had another p***k in the wall.....

Crazy diamond formation.

Us and them involved?

jeezo. How are you gonna fit that idiot on your mantelpiece?

*sigh*….. it’s self-evident that we paid him his wage up to the end of the window and his contract was then cancelled for whatever sum was agreed……. Or at least I THOUGHT it would be self-evident. I posted a very short post wishing the guy well; I wasn’t looking to add umpteen appendices and caveats about what went on to get him to that point. I actually feel quite sorry for you, you’re still constantly looking to create arguments out of nothing in the hope of scoring meaningless points and you’ve been that way for far too many years. You’re now well into your fourth decade on this earth, Stephen; it’s high time you started to act like it.

Hmmm, right……. Well, all I intended was to post a couple of lines wishing the guy well for the future and that it was good to see that he and the club had reached a, hopefully amicable, agreement re his deal with us. I COULD’VE said “Morton” rather than “Imrie”, and “agreed” rather than “gave” and added a few caveats, but who in their right mind would’ve expected such an innocuous wee post would be leapt on by an emotionally-stunted Bluebottle wittering on about contract law as if he knew the first think about it?? Although, in retrospect, I should’ve known better, right?

…..except that I didn’t say Lithgow was getting his January wage as a pay off (for the absence of doubt, nor did I “allude to it” or “infer it”). He was obviously going to get a negotiated settlement for the balance of his contract. I’d’ve thought that would be obvious to most and wouldn’t have to be said, in a short post wishing the guy well, but apparently the hard of thinking and the nit-pickers are always with us. And, if you check my initial post, you’ll find that it was me who said “I’d imagine”, nobody else. And I went on to say it was giving the player some time to find an alternative club. What that twat DID say was that I was wrong in saying that Lithgow’s departure would have been mooted and discussed earlier than just over the last day or two. None of us know for sure but common sense dictates that I will be correct in that assumption. I’m more than happy for you and him to think differently, or refuse to admit that I could be correct. On balance, then, a swing and a miss for you both. Christ, don’t you start as well….. Your second paragraph - where did I say that we were looking to pay him off in November or December?? I said nothing of the kind. I said that there will have been discussions over the course of this month and possibly earlier, and that is what virginton (I love when autocorrect does that ) was taking issue with, nothing else. I wouldn’t have expected the news to be released before it was, and as I said I now expect him to pop up elsewhere this week. The negotiated settlement for the balance of his contract was probably conditional on him staying on the books at Cappielow on presumably a higher wage than he’ll be getting going forward (note that i said “presumably” as we have no way of knowing). I could’ve said “Morton” rather than Imrie agreeing that , that would’ve been more accurate, but then again I didn’t expect the the fucking Spanish Inquisition (by the way, NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition) over one short post wishing the guy well. Apart from the first two lines of your post, the rest of it shows that your thoughts and mine on this are on very similar lines. Club, manager and player will have known for much of this season that a “by mutual consent” in January could be a possibility, they’ll have talked about it early in the window (which was vt’s only bone of contention re my first post, and we agree that he will have been wrong in that ) or earlier, and now that we’ve reached the end of the month all parties can move on. (except for on here, obviously)

Dear oh dear…… You’re not seriously contending that Imrie and Lithgow and members of the board only sat down to discuss the player’s future after Saturday’s game, are you? REALLY?? There will have been at the very least an opening conversation early in the transfer window, and very possibly even before the end of 2022. While neither of us has much knowledge of “how professional football contracts work”, unlike you I do at least have an awareness of how things work in the real world. Either the player, the manager or the club will undoubtedly have initiated a discussion - Lithgow was one of the highest paid at the club, if not THE highest paid, and he was getting hardly any game time. One, two or all three of those parties will have sought a meeting - from all three perspectives it would be a dereliction of duty NOT to, with the opening of the transfer window giving an opportunity for Morton to save a wage and pay off a contract, Imrie to maybe free up a wage for a new player and Lithgow to get a payoff, find himself a new club and get back to playing regular football. That hasn’t just all happened in the last few days and it would be ludicrous to contend that it did…….. but, here we are. Your argument, such as it is, is completely untenable, which is why you’ve given up on it and resorted, as usual, to insults and abuse. Grow up, ffs.

You know no more than I do about what went on. Imagine being proud of posting such utter shite. Still, you've had plenty of practice.

Good luck to him, he did a decent job for us - we were almost always a better team when he was in it. I'd imagine Imrie gave him this month on our wages to find another club, and I'd expect to see him announced somewhere else in the next day or two.

Bookmarked for future resurrection.

Until VAR was foisted upon the game the ref and his two assistants had a fraction of a second to view an incident in real time, and if they couldn’t be as near as 100% sure that an offence had been committed they wouldn’t give it - or, at least, shouldn’t have. The problem now is that those in the VAR room either feel, or are being instructed, that they have to use the technology to its fullest, micromanaging every decision to get it just right and to hell with how long it takes. IMO they should be told to watch an incident n o more than 3 times and over no more than 30 seconds, and if they can’t decide by then that an offence has been committed then let the referee and the teams get on with the game, as was the case before VAR. This business of watching a replay ten times or more and then getting the referee to watch it another three or four times is farcical - in a game as fast-moving as football is (or should be) the possibility for marginal decisions maybe going the wrong way has always been there. VAR can certainly help that, but those in charge should be told to make decisions more quickly. That might mean some wrong decisions still being made, but it seemed to take forever yesterday for them to still get it wrong. Plus, as yesterday showed, the handball rule as it stands is a bit of a joke.

Aye, if the rest of it was as bare as the stretch in front of our fans it makes you wonder how bad the Hampden pitch must be to have had Postecoglu bumping his gums about it last week. Funnily enough, I haven’t seen him saying anything yet about how Celtic benefitted from a VAR & referee decision yesterday………. I don’t think a single person bar the goon on the VAR monitor noticed that incident, including the referee. The ball nicked off Baird very close to Ambrose, who was facing the other way. He couldn’t be deemed to have hit it intentionally with his arm, which wasn’t in an “unnatural position” in relation to the rest of him, and both before and after the ball hit him it was moving away from goal. Compare and contrast with the Connor Goldson incident in the Old Firm game the other week, and let’s hear a referee defend the decisions given………. But don’t hold your breath. The only thing that can be said in favour of having VAR at that game is the fact that Celtic have the big screens at either end. Pretty quickly during the long looong wait for the VAR decision the screens were showing the reason for the check, which was at least something as nobody in the ground had a clue up till then. If we’re going to persist with VAR then we need to make sure that at grounds without screens the stadium announcer is able to inform the fans what’s happening. Fitba’ is meant to be an entertainment business and currently the public are being shortchanged, both by VAR decisions and by how it’s being used.