UCF2008

Aluko's the one I feel sorry for being lumped in with the rest. There's a big difference between a 4 or 5 year contract and an option to extend a 1 year deal.

Yes, but they most likely wouldn't have been paid in full either if the reductions hadn't been agreed.

I didn't hear any of them say a bad word about Green.

He's being phased out. He was sat on the bench for the last game iirc.

My opinion is that the TUPE was badly handled by everyone involved. The PFA, D&P, Green, even McCoist should all take their shae of the blame. Yes, it really hurt when those players jumped ship. I'll probably be able to forgive them and like I said before if it comes to a point where one or two of them return, I'd welcome them back.

I probably did. They were looking at buying Rangers for as close to nothing as possible and I'm not saying they would have done a better job than Green if they had. No need to be so defensive mate. I'm only saying that going back into administration wouldn't have been the only option.

I did say most. Not all. I agree with you on Mendes. Even though he had a few off games he was different class. My point was that our central midfielders seem to have limited opportunity to make an impression in a lot of games.

They were waiting in the wings from Newco day one. Kennedy even went public to 'reassure' fans of this a month or two down the line.

I think hiding is an accusation that could be levelled against most of our CM's over the past decade. I don't know if it's the way we play with so many long balls and wing plays, but central mid's only really seem to contribute in any sort of creative sense via counter attacks or when they push further up the park and make runs into the opposition area. It's probably why it took me so long to see what all the fuss was about with Lewis Macleod and also why I struggle to see why Black has been comparitively so poor.

Or sold to McColl or Kennedy.

At least it started off that way. Do you mean on or off the park then?

Am I allowed to guess you mean Davis?

The combined total of those salaries would at least have guaranteed the prospectus made for some pretty grimm reading.

Which they were perfectly entitled to do. I don't think it's necessarily fair that we should think they should have TUPE'd over just so that we could pick and choose what to do with them. Of course it seems like the honorable thing to have done, but like you point out there are two sides to it. We weren't exactly in the best position to be expecting to have our cake and eat it. Even one of those who stayed was on national radio over the summer talking about how the players hadn't been contacted and had no idea what was happening. It might have been their decision to make but it wasn't all the players fault.

He's the one I hold the biggest grudge against as well but yes, I'd welcome him back too. We'll hopefully build such a great team over the next couple of years that they would be surplus to requirements, but otherwise I'd have them all back ...except Lafferty of course.

That's a bit harsh. I'd expect the club would know better than to treat any of them like a guest of honour and parade them out at half time for a round of applause, but a lifetime ban? Furthermore, I don't really agree with calling them traitors. Signing for our bitter rivals and kissing or thumping that badge when scoring against us - that would be a traitor ...and we welcomed him back. They jumped ship. They're deserters, not traitors. In the eyes of some it may be the same difference, but not mine.

The thing that annoys me about Davis is that he was our captain. Whether his decision not to TUPE was instrumental in the decisions of others we'll never know. At the same time I'm prepared to cut him some slack because he didn't make any sickening farewell speeches like Naismith and Whittaker did and he made sure we got a fee for him. Even Green said he went with the clubs best wishes. He signed a three year deal so will be 30 by the time his contract runs out. Just in time for our return to the top flight. If he wants to come back on a free for an acceptable wage (acceptable to us that is) then I'd welcome him back. If he wants to come back as a fan before then I see no reason why he shouldn't be able to

Or Wattie?

You seem to have missread my post. I didn't say anything about their wages at their previous clubs. What I DID say is that they 'are probably being paid no more than they would have been were we still in the SPL when we signed them.' In other words I think it's a myth that we had to concede to extortionate wage demands to attract players to the 3rd division. What they were on at their previous club is irrelevant. When moving from a small club to a big club players and agents expect higher wages.

To be fair we did let Adam go at a time where we were desperate to cut the wage bill and bring in cash to balance the books after seriously overspending at the worst time imaginable. Even then, it was a hot topic of debate amongst fans at the time as to whether Adam was good enough to play for us.

I'm surprised we managed to convince so many players to come and play in the 4th tier of Scottish football for so little. If reported figures are to be believed the SPL players we signed are on less than half the wages of Jig and Alexander and are probably being paid no more than they would have been were we still in the SPL when we signed them. Granted, in one or two cases we might have gone for a better alternative if we were still in the SPL, but that comes back to your point about the window being so tight and options limited. It's all fine and well for some to say in hindsight that we should have signed the best players from the lower divisions who would have cost a fraction of the wages we're currently shelling out, but I just don't think it's realistic to assume that would have worked out better for anything more than the clubs coffers.

Something to do with the naming rights perhaps?

I think it was in response to Green saying 'I am going to meet the directors of Central Coast Mariners on the back of conversations we have had ...one of the things we are looking at is putting an academy together with Mariners and its something we have exchanged emails on and something we would like to take forward' link to article in question The rubbishing of Greens claims does appear to come from an unnamed club spokesperson talking to Scotzine so make of that what you will .

From page3... What I don't understand is how the same posters who complained about only being able to buy shares in the holding comany and not the club are now complaining that the holding company owns Ibrox. The way I see it the holding company owns RFCL and all assets. In other words it owns the club. Of course there's the possibility that such a setup could facilitate asset stripping ....or it could just do what it says in the prospectus.

That's what I was just thinking I recalled seeing in the prospectus.