Jump to content

Domino the Dug

Gold Members
  • Posts

    199
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

25 Excellent

Profile Information

  • My Team
    Clyde

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Rather contradictory, this. In principle and in its sales pitch, yes it professes to incorporate transparency. Many will have varying views on this USP as a meaningful factor, while remaining as owners/members/shareholders/cashcows. Their/our choice. Yet given such an option, you opt not to endorse it other than as a nosey-parker, and choose to foster a viewpoint on matters with third-hand information and no regard to how 'on the pitch events' have been steered until now. Your interest moved away from the pitch awfully quickly, did it not?
  2. I'm not falling for your reticent Manuel the waiter routine (rather spookily, from Barcelona!), but i am led to believe this is wrong. It was much, much more than that. The figure you quote is apparently a 'settlement', in other words, an admission of liable for the debt. At that figure, we're talking almost £2k per game. On food. I didn't recall seeing any players gobbling down plates of lobster or halfing a chateubriand, so perhaps the question ought to be, for what reason is it the board consider themselves paying such a fee that hasn't yet been disclosed? One party is accused of highwaymanship, while the other pisses away money it doesn't have. Is it just to get rid of him?
  3. If you (or your sources) listened to what was said, and/or relayed them correctly, Mr Innes seemed to be missing some crucial part of the profiteering allegations being made, when presenting figures. That being, making a profit! Its either that, or people have their goodie/baddie roles greatly misunderstood. Then again, the stage needs a villain, and after a two hour bum-skelping of the directory with zero explanation from the incumbent board, an unwarranted vicious attack was launched at one of the only tangible fundraisers left in the room. For a club that greets about constantly being pratted, it seems money from various (if not most clear) sources is free to walk out the door and not pester the Ponzi scheme which appears to otherwise sustain it. £150k+ loss in two years? Handing out three year contracts? They should be kissing feet!
  4. Depends upon who you consider the investment was made by, or if anyone's been saddled with it. Good luck finding any of this out, if you go the usual route!
  5. This is one of several counter-productive issues that we've adopted, and like all the others the results simply are dreadful. Bringing in Lang, to either replace or partner whichever CBs we've used until now won't make the blindest bit of difference until the midfield grow a set and impose themselves. Grant sits far too deep for someone with virtually zero creative distribution, never actually picking up a man and often wandering into the spaces the CBs need to push their opponents back into. Put another way, none of our CBs ever get in Mitchell's road. There's a reason. No denying that goals have come from individual errors among that group, but the sheer volume we're losing from runs/speculatives from outside the area is frightening. Last year this was down to Clownshoe Currie, but this time its down to pure shitebaggery in the middle. No wonder teams take us as easy beats when they know all they need to do is tire out McStay or Lamont (if they even bother with them) and who invariably chuck it quickly. This was spotted early at Stranraer, and at Montrose. f**k all done about it. That's the managers fault.
  6. Absolutely, and a very liberal use of them is administered too, fitting various agendas all at once. I'm none too fussed whether we're X amount in the hole, or throwing cash around like there's no tomorrow. The results on the field will determine whether the strategy has succeeeded or not, and we have appointed a body of people to carry this out. Let them at it! What i am concerned about is us sleepwalking into situations by avoiding them, while dishing out bright eyed and bushy tailed (and fully deserved) critiques and slatings for poor team displays like recently. Why is one acceptable (remember the great STOFO initiative throughout 2016-17) but the other, is not?
  7. Dunfermline fan on the Raith match thread seemed to pull a few in, with his Goodwillie contract exclusives. Would people, specifically our own supporters, rather not discuss such matters, let alone agree or disagree over them? Given the AGM financial report and the importance placed on governance having seen off the resident Chairman surely its an important subject?
  8. Hamstring i heard, perhaps carrying a niggle like a lot of players generally do. Love knackered himself playing through his as long as he did, mind you. Big fortnight coming up, rotation really ought to be a four letter word when we're struggling but that complete shambles of a lineup from Airdrie must not be repeated. If Lyon and Wylde were thrown in on Saturday with such a result, i should expect McStay, Smith, Love and Johnston to be at the very least in serious contention for Raith. They've been no less consistent than Lyon, and have each shown more than Wylde despite his supposed pedigree, on a game percentage basis. In whichever configuration is up to Lennon, i don't suppose the numbers or lines make much difference when in such dreadful form. They literally couldn't be worse. Livingstone and Cunningham, in their position, can't really have been expected to rally the side, but both with their backgrounds should fill a gap until May.
  9. In all the commotion about left back/strike partner for DG, right back has been the elephant in the dressing room. Cuddihy playing there, and very well in L2 is a distant memory, and neither Lyon or Duffie are fit enough to play five games in a row. Two are midfielders, so why not use them there! The main problem with the three, in Scotland in general and struggling teams in particular is a 'back three' really means back five. That would invite so much more bother to the door than we already have, if we don't cap the number of 'defensive minded' players we select. When i say defensive, i dont just mean position, i mean those who err by standing off, or are just plainly reactive players. Of all our defenders only Lang will follow his man along the deck. Likewise Ally Love offers a defensive edge on the left wing, as he did in the autumn especially at Falkirk. Square pegs in round holes are costing us, more than the failure of (most) operatives. These are Lennon matters, simple as that.
  10. The latest round of recruits (May-present) have each been intended to fill a skills gap on the field, even Wallace as a midfield all-rounder. Obviously that one went to the dogs, and of the other signings still here, only Johnston, tasked with providing width and creativity, polarises opinions (early on Wylde, as you were with Lang). Livingston looks a clear upgrade at LB, and good reports surround Cunningham. So its fair to say the manager knows a weak area when he sees one. I had issues with his recruitment last season (Hopkirk, Gorman, Kharim) but hasn't been so eager to bolster with more mediocrity just for numbers this time. Budgets and availability play their part, and what he's rectified then becomes a recruiting/scouting issue if they don't measure up. Even Alex Ferguson got the odd one wrong, so its far from a slating the manager. Had the players shown a hunger for pressing and harrying Forfar never mind Celtic, im sure he'd have incorporated it into our game. I felt he protected them a little too much from this on Sunday.
  11. Yes. Which is why i had even less expectations then, than Sunday. The place was such a state, the name was up for grabs.
  12. On point 4: Do we accept relegation then, to avoid the stress of having to worry about it? Peterhead have us completely sussed as it is; Stranraer this year have filled the gap Berwick left, that being the one where we concede tons of first half goals to crap teams. Forfar and Montrose, seem content with their own battles to be bothered by us much. Positivity isnt about jumping up and down with glee wishing things into existence. Its about identifying areas with improvement potential, and for the most part, that's been disregarded as the season has gone on, for various reasons. The game yesterday being the most stupid of them all. Left-back this, Goodie partner that, has papered over cracks elsewhere which are a problem now, never mind next season.
  13. Your closing words are a lot in sync with where i'm headed with what might appear 'criticism' of the match or result. I absolutely didn't expect a thing yesterday, in the best spirit possible. Celtic are probably playing their highest standard of football in the Sky sports era, potentially maybe nabbing a long European run and in light of NeoGers revival (enough about them now) and yes, it would have taken a major miracle to get even a draw, on balance of the match itself. The last sentence is pivotal, and a sign of where the players (even the ones i'd now thank and replace) and management have led us, some a victim of their own success in a way. Of course yesterday i wasnt expecting that magical 'one performance' from any of those who've flattered to decieve, or been simply pish until now, but i'm not hiding my annoyance with some of them and their form, just because they got passed around by a top drawer side. Broomhill could have easily pulled the same draw and been even happier with the 'plucky part timers' gig than us, but i'd much rather we were 'plucky' away in the league and given ourselves a template not just for yesterday but for the rest of the season. It was easy to go into battle yesterday.
  14. So, it's not an occasion to showcase your own talents, just to build a wall and blooter it up the park and hope for the best? Where's the self-respect, or intent on adding to the spectacle? Or do we simply judge a game beforehand, based on what league place we're both in, or what the papers say? Johnston wasn't signed to chase back and prove his commitnent by knackering himself defending (something those chosen ahead of him never do themselves), he was hired to create, and give us an outlet we didn't have. Yes he's been shite on a few occasions, but outside of a group of about four players this year (inc the goalie, and Lang after 4 games!) that's true of everyone. Look at our league statistics, for evidence. Its no coincidence we kept Celtic at a regular Premiership scoreline, the only league team we've bothered turning up against twice is Falkirk, large crowd, bigger club etc. Had as much effort gone into our games against the rest of the bottom six, as yesterday, i'd have gladly forgiven double that scoreline had we at least looked like trying to get into the game, somehow. We're painting ourselves as strugglers to seemingly avoid any sort of accountability for poor showings, and on a football level, when your keeper and CB are your best performers, thats exactly what that was. A bit of duplicity here, we're praising Tom Lang's MotM display (correctly) while basically telling the rest of the team it didn't matter how they played. It may be a mixed ability classroom, but thats the first time i've seen us play the OF (8 or 9 in total) and not enjoyed anything of how we played. A lot of eggs going in the 'hope' basket for the remainder of the season, while we continue making the same stupid bloody mistakes.
  15. Thou shalt not analyse such contests. Only about the money, yada yada, other classless, nihilistic observations, etc. Excellent points. 3-0 was accurate, both on scale of effort and the obvious gulf. That's not the problem. Poor decision-making with the ball continues to hamper us far more than what opponents are managing- including Celtic in spells- when we don't have it. Far be it for me to suggest we look for things we're good at, in amongst all the defeatist garbage about how terrible we are and shouldn't bother to compete. Lamont over Johnston, when you're looking at less than a handful of times you'll get the time or space to feed in Goodwillie, which Johnston can do, and with the ball almost 90% of the game in midfield and on the deck, was a bad choice. Not utilising Love's pace and dig, potentially moving us up the park quicker to support DG and perhaps making a game of it early on (our only real chance), a move which could have moved Rankin central and keeping (what) possession we had better. These aggressive, progressive changes might have got us a bigger scudding, on the other hand, might not have. For me there just seemed a lot lacking, from atmosphere to tempo and strategy. Very little to get excited about, in truth.
×
×
  • Create New...