Leaderboard

Polster is an unknown and Flanagan has nowhere near the footballing ability Tav has.

Tav for 10 mill would be good business, but he would be very tough to replace

Aye but I got 2 replies, 3 now.?

And still, not a peep from the SNP government. Normally you can’t keep these nationalist blowhards off the airwaves but things are obviously different when it comes to their football club.

Happens on an almost daily occurrence on twitter mate. Probably jungle Jims with nothing better to do with their time. Sad bassas

Flanagan may be a RB and may defend better than Tav - but we will lose a lot of our attacking threat if we lose Tav - completely different players. Polster - completely unproven

Why do arseholes do that?

I fell for that earlier too Ian... It is a spoof account

Agreed. The SNP are complicit in the paedophilia cover-up that's been going on by refusing the demands for a public enquiry or even refusing meetings with victims and their families. Shameful.

Bandwagon jumping. No one does it better than snp/celtic.

Aston Villa has just won the "£180 Million" game. Any negotiation with it over players has to be seen in that light.

Much higher.

If the fee is similar to Huttons many moons ago then take it. This is why Polster was drafted in IMO. We also have Flanagan who could at RB.

We've been quite good at close season talk in recent years, the problems have come when the league started. Less talk about winning the league and more on-field consistency of result, please. I like Jones as a player and just hope he has the mentality to play at a big club.

Why are they holding an investigation into Celtic boys club if the organisation has nothing to do with them?

To be fair to Richard Gordon it is hard to consider players from a team you refuse to watch...

Interested to read the rationale given for not agreeing with the compliance officer. Surely her competence must be called into question as it was very clear brown was not struck in the face. "Compliance officer Clare Whyte flagged the case to three former officials for further assessment, and they unanimously agreed the incident merited a sending off and Flanagan was given a two-game ban. However, that was overruled by a fast-track tribunal on 17 May. Under Scottish FA rules, an offence witnessed by a referee can only be retrospectively punished if it meets at least one of the following criteria - the involvement of excessive force, brutality or a resulting serious injury. Whyte told the panel she would only be arguing that the clash featured brutality, which she defined as "savage, ruthless or deliberately violent". After hearing Whyte, Flanagan and Rangers' lawyers present their cases - which included video replays of the incident - the panel sided with the former Liverpool player. It rejected the compliance officer's claims that Brown had been struck in the face, insisting contact was made with the "chest/neck area of the opponent". Only question remaining unanswered is why was brown not then charged with bringing the game into disrepute for feigning he was struck in the face!