mfc88

For me, its a combination. 1) TV 2) Old firm greed 3) The fact that people dont stop going on about it. Every time the radio is on before or after the game all you hear is overused cliches such as "The state of the scottish game...", "sums up the financial position of scottish clubs", "not value for money" etc etc. Surely this negativity is putting people off going? Think about it with any other product/service e.g. a restaurant - if a handful of people tell you its shite then you steer clear.

+1 Does no one remember the nick of the pitch 12 months ago?

True. Though sutton i would expect to stay if we offer him a new deal. If jennings or reynolds stayed past the summer it would be a real surprise.

Seems like the man city lad would be a good capture. As for Griffiths (and I will probably be proved wrong here) i'm not too bothered. On sunday he looked like a poor mans Jamie Murphy and I think the step up to the spl may prove him to be over rated at this stage in his career. Then again what do i know!! After the utd game I'm tending to feel that were not gna do that well this season...at the same time were far from doomed...If I was mccall i'd be tempted to bring through a handful of young lads now to prepare for next year. If we develop a solid core to the team through Randy, hutch, saunders, pollock(far down the pecking order i know but i rate him highly), Las, murph and sutton - as lets face it, its highly unlikely that Reynolds + jennings will be here next season, plus crags is declining at an alarming rate. Then we make a few decent additions in the summer and we can look forward to a good one next year! SIMPLES!!

I dont know this but i suspect it will be a case of us not willing to pay anything (because we cant) so the club (Plymouth was it?) more or less decided his future by letting accepting any team that offered money and phasing us out of the running. FFS give the guy a chance. Hes had an injury and only 1 start. Jim O'B was scrutinised for being "shite" after about 5 mins of football in as many months and he turned into a player for us.

Ok I understand what you are saying but at some point this talent or whatever the coaching staff see needs to be transferred on to the pitch which it hasn't.

So does that mean we should just sign him up till he retires? How much longer more time does he get to do nothing before we say enough is enough? If we extend his contract 6, 12, 18 months, whatever he won't have progressed any further up the pecking order and we all know it.

Im sorry but i do couldnt disagree with this more. Other phrases that have been used in his defence are "squad player", "solid/ reliable", "cheap"... 1) Hes not versatile, hes even worse on the left than he is in the middle. 2) Hes not a workhorse - Lasley is and when have you seen him cover as much ground as las in a game? 3) Hes not solid or reliable - quite the opposite imo. 4) We have a lot of young talent dying to get a chance - these guys can be used as squad players and one may turn into a gem. 5) He may be cheap but as it is we need to save every penny we can and cant justify paying a wage for a goal he scored 7 years ago. 6) He has done nothing of note since the hearts semi in 2004. The only word I would agree with there is unglamourous. Why should he get a new deal? The truth is Fitz has had countless chances to impress in his 7 years here and has never really done so since his early days. Move on and good luck to him.

+1 I cant see what other folk seem to see. Other than the hearts semi final goal (that will always be in our memories )...what has he done of note? I agree with those saying give pollock a shot. I saw him in the U19s and he looked the best player on the park. We should also do our utmost to get sutton and jennings extended deals too.

Yeah I think we are! The one that plays for motherwell? As someone posted hes a bit slow but I'd still disagree the above. Even then how many kicks and shoves will he take and balls he wins from the front? And his scoring record is 1 in 3, what crap striker, at any level has that sort of record? (And dont play the kris boyd card, haha!)

My sentiments exactly. I never understand the tv and highlights bollocks anyway. Correct me if im wrong but sky offer £12M, I read in an earlier post that the ugly sisters take 80% of that (although i thought 60) so between the remaining ten thats 2% each = £240,000. At £20 a ticket we'd need 12,000 more fans through the gates over 20 games. Is that impossible? We'd maybe make a loss but wouldn't it be worth it to at least start to get an atmosphere back? As has been said though its not about us diddy teams is it. Apologies for the number crunching but its something that iv always thought. And to add this 10 team thing cant go ahead or we are done for. I have come to dispise doncaster and his high earning kronies that dont even think outside the box...scratch that, outside the OF.

Basically the SPL have had meetings and pretended to do research on the scottish game to decide on the best way forward for it's structure in order to improve the game. They claim the best way is going back to a ten team league which is what we had 10-15 years ago, which didnt work back then and wont work a second time round. It would appear 85% of fans disagree but the guys running the SPL arent listening and are sticking with the ten team thing.

This topic has pissed me off for weeks. The imposters running the spl/sfa, whatever, should be out a job. Was it Heny Mcleish who did the "investigation" in to scottish football and his "radical shake up" conclusions are to go back in time 15 years??? We had a ten team league that didnt work back then, hence the change....now this hasnt worked so dont just go back! Make it more competitive with play offs for europe, playoffs for relegation and more relegation spots etc. I guess I sort of support the regionalisation of the lower league but would feel a bit sorry for fans of any of those teams. Unless would there be promotion from these to the spl2? To add to that, and you may call me mental, but tell sky and there derisory tv offer to gtf - that would improve crowds. But theres absolutely no chance they will do that.

IMO he was losing his form before this. Dont get me wrong, on his day blackman is a class act but can we afford to play him when he doesnt look interested? I'd love to see him back to where he was 3 months ago but when hes playing like this he cant be an automatic selection as he has been. This is one of the few things i liked about gannon...he dropped players that underperformed. I dont understand the backing of fitzy. Hes not that experienced, as has been said hes been injured or out of favour for most of the last 7 years (since hearts cis semi! That long?!?). I like his honesty and all that but surely it makes more sense to give one of the young lads a chance over him?

Hi all, new to this board but have spent enough time on it to give into it and start posting! Anyway my opinion on this is that the last id keep is fitz...yes hes an honest hardworker etc etc but the bottom line is he will never be more than a squad player. We have the young lads meechen, innes, pollock to fill that position if necessary. And these lads have more potential than fitz too...time for him to move on. I think gow has something to offer. He was dire against hamilton right enough but i think hes been excellent at other times for us and if we can get him playing well then we have a real good player. Blackmans gone well off the boil and unless hes going to get his form back soon then i'd rather see that wage spent on someone else. Im not really a fan of loan signings so being a bit bias here too. Just to add - I dont know where all the negative comments about sutton are coming from. Hes an excellent player for us, one of the few that offers a bit of muscle in our team as well as 110% effort.