Jump to content

Chefki Kuqi

Gold Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


13 Good

Profile Information

  • Location
  • My Team

Recent Profile Visitors

147 profile views
  1. Perhaps just me but I swear there was an audible fart at the beginning of the first set of analysis last night, anyone else?
  2. I stand corrected. Wasn't a huge fan, but then again I quite rate Scooter so I'll probably be getting nowhere near making the musical calls at ER or anywhere else anytime soon.
  3. I found the screens kinda distracting tbh, not so much the ones in the corners but the ones on the sides of the stands. Just look weird those extra ones with the scoreboard beside. Think they'd be good if they were at opposite corners, like one between the west and the south stand opposite the one between the east and the north stand, with the wee scoreboard things on top/below. Also thought some of the new music being played was pish, as it sometimes is to be fair, but seemed like a bespoke song was being played pre-match and after the first goal and it was kinda crap. Glad to hear that Brazil one after the second.
  4. Had a fairly bad view of the game in the first half thinking that row F in the East would make for a nice change, it wasn't. The football was also fairly crap, I thought St Mirren won the midfield battle and I wasn't overly sure what role Cadden was being asked to play and perhaps neither was he. Moved to one of the back rows of the East for the second half and after tucking into my pies (20 minute waiting time) there was a feast of goals to celebrate. Didn't see why the first goal was disallowed and didn't see why the penalty was given, but can only assume it was due to the fracas with that raging St Mirren player and the conga line. For some reason, possibly the introduction of Scooter Allan, we were cutting Saint Mirren open almost at will for a time but after failing to go beyond 2-1 up some of the players just looked like they stopped trying as hard and Saints got themselves back into it. Not a thrilling game, probably the shittest I've watched from this season, perhaps Dundee, but not an overly bad result against a team in St Mirren who I thought looked good for most of the game, barring the opening 25 minutes of the second half.
  5. I personally thought that window gone by was one of our better windows so I'm surprised by this and by the characterisation of the window as a failure, albeit a couple of things seen from the outside which look a little sketchy. On the positives: Macey - Solid find initially and looking to have grown into it more every week. JDH - Probably my favourite signing in recent times, felt for all that was good last year our midfielders couldn't find each other and with this fella that's resolved and then some. Tait - One for the future, albeit signed with a view to him contributing immediately until Rovers demanded he be loaned back. Scott - Thought he's looked decent in his first two games without scoring and too steaming to give a proper verdict on his derby performance but from what little I saw it wasn't great, but still, two out of three. Slight failure not to get an option/obligation on him I think but we'll see how that pans out. For me I'd be happy considering him a Striker, thus why I don't necessarily feel we failed to provide depth there. Mueller - Perhaps the credit for this is being claimed from other quarters, but at the time he was looked at as a coup and hopefully that pans out, albeit again there are questions as to whether this was Mathie's work. Magennis - Cheating slightly as this was last years work, and perhaps this might be more one for Ross given his St Mirren links, but an example of the recruitment work panning out over time for positive results. Wood - Sounds a good prospect too, albeit on loan and unseen as of yet so no comment really other than it sounds like good depth to have. Mckay - Or however its spelled. Again, hailed as a coup when he signed at the end of last season, scored some goals so far in limited opportunities. On the negatives: No CB signed permanently in any of the last few windows is a bad one. I think the defence has looked decent thus far this season other than in Croatia and whenever Gogic has been relied on, but its clear we're looking for decent depth and competition here. Fawning after Kerr and McCart all Summer didn't do much good in the end sadly, but dealing with St Johnstone whilst they're still in Europe seemed like a difficult task. Albeit that would make you conclude we should be looking elsewhere. Lack of depth at striker, I don't personally buy into this. I think we're generally going to play one up top, for which we can currently rotate Nisbet and Scott, with the possibility of Boyle filling in, or giving a chance to the likes of O'Connor or Laidlaw. Doidge will return eventually, and we've got try giving our youth a shot at some point. Perhaps someone like a Zak Rudden might have been nice but equally he'd probably find playing opportunities fairly short. Not selling Doig was a missed opportunity I felt, but equally the money had to be right and perhaps it wasn't Perhaps we were asking for too much, but maybe a little faith in the player and the team that they'll be able to go out this year and not just maintain but improve on their levels from last and we might actually see that cash forthcoming. Personally I would likely have taken anything over £3 million, especially seeing as it sounds like there were targets we had lined up to use that money on, but as above, happy to roll the dice. I am slightly concerned that we loaned out Bradley, our depth on the wings is looking a little flimsy and I think he could easily have had a shot, but I'm sure we'll survive. All in all I think its a mistake letting him go, his record since he arrived I feel is very good and a large part of why I enjoy watching the team these days - albeit I don't know anything about the exact range of his influence on signings/direction etc. I hope Ron has someone good lined up already as I feel this is one of those un-necessary gambles that could turn out badly, having his own person for the sake of it kinda vibe.
  6. I take your point, albeit I think there's something quite nice about Norwich and Fulham, and part of the problem the 5 clubs are discussing is that actually Sky have a preference to show Championship games - including Norwich and Fulham - over SPL games. In the SPL there's a definite point, any somewhat Yo-Yo teams could be very difficult to follow once in the Scottish second tier.
  7. Well your final paragraph is fine except you state its one or the other. Clubs would be free to use that revenue, wisely or unwisely. The dream I suppose is that more revenue means holding onto developed talent for longer, in the sense that you'd ideally as a European spot finisher want to be able to compete with the likes of Rotherham for wages. Obviously for bigger championship club and bigger fees that's pie in the sky, but surely can give Rotherham the finger?
  8. Could just keep the split. Used to think it was ridiculous but now I think its kinda neat. If that ends up making the season too long, then I dunno, split it in thirds?
  9. I'd agree with that. I suppose part of the appeal of this aspiration is to show European football that there's more to the Scottish game than the OF - albeit by that criteria we've not done, as you point out, very well. But still that aspiration remains, and with three spots up for grabs and a fair range of teams in the mix it's a fairly entertaining race.
  10. I'm fully aware this isn't a particularly good point but I'll say it anyway. There is a common concern raised in this thread that the hegemony of the OF removes the competitive lustre of the game. I personally don't pay too much mind to it and instead look at the race for the European spots as being the best realistic thing that most clubs can aspire to outside of occasional cup success. Perhaps if there's an angle that needs to be marketed more, its that race for Europe. The BBC do a reasonable if limited job in that regard, certainly scope for improvement from Sky and whatever other theoretical players are in play here.
  11. I'm intrigued as to what people mean by saying we're missing in the marketing front specifically, what the selling point of the league is. Not to say there isn't one, but it is fairly nebulous and perhaps treated as something of a silver bullet. Loathe to say given the amount of time devoted to the OF but as far as I can see one of the best pieces of marketing for the game going on is Sportscene as it provides an avenue to familiarise yourself with the storylines of other clubs. I think an equivalent version of EFL on Quest would be beneficial too, and its not like BBC Scotland is churning out content that'd get a higher viewership currently.
  12. Much obliged! From the looks of things the comparably sized countries whom have higher revenues are generally all Scandinavian, which leads me to think their increased revenues have something to do with the relative strength of their currency/wages? Not economically literate though so just vomiting it up for discussion. I mean by comparison to Belgium and the Netherlands, whom have more than double and triple our populations respectively, we perform poorly relative to Belgium but then again so do - surprisingly - the Netherlands, whom earn only slightly more than double for their deal in a country with more than triple our population. I also worry about the relatively low number of live televised games that we have and that potentially being heavily influenced by the OF. Not to say that we can't improve the marketing of the game by showing more games, but I do feel there is scope for that value to drop down the more games we show.
  13. I had heard something about our value per game being quite high, or something similar. It's obviously an intriguing statistic, where is it from if you don't mind me asking?
  14. In truth I don't think things are awful the way they are, other than the fact that I think the Sky deal does little for our game and we'd perhaps be better off trying an in-house solution. The number of teams in the league makes it competitive throughout so its fairly entertaining. However I believe two bigger leagues instead of four, ie 20 teams top, 22+ teams below, might be for the betterment of Scottish football. I suggest this for two reasons: 1) It will allow teams who have made up the SPL or whom challenge in Championship to make it to the big leagues. In my view some of these clubs just need a chance to kick on to grow, and regular visits from teams with larger supports may be beneficial to them, in turn allowing them to invest in the team and potentially take larger home crowds. 2) It will make the league less competitive, perhaps less meaningful games for mid-table sides. However I do feel if - to be arrogant about it - there are 'easier' games for established SPL clubs then that will provide a greater opportunity to play youth and develop talent. Currently because the league is competitive its a risk for a team like Hibs to put out anything but a best 11 every week. Perhaps good for the product on show, but fairly crap for the development of players if the only way they can develop is through the 1) League Cup 2) Loan system 3) Injury crisis. It would lead to a smaller share of the overall pot, but potentially increase the amount of players developed in the league whom can either continue to play a part for the team or merit being sold on.
  15. I've not seen the quote from Nelms, but for those interested a new article from the BBC with a couple more vague things thrown in: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58565111
  • Create New...