Darthter

allegedly, they are required to stop the roof blowing off when it's windy. Obviously this doesn't apply to windy match days.

I think it is one major downside of Social Media.....it give people (from all walks of life) a sense of being someone. Look at all the folk making £m's via YouTube for doing thing more than playing video games, make-up demos, video blogs of their everyday life. Too many folk (particularly politicians) seek voter "approval" via their social media feeds - makes them look accessible to the voters. As the OP points out, they would rather try & increase their twitter following than actually do something practical. It's one thing a normal punter tweeting/re-tweeting about this kinda stuff - their options for action are very limited, but a MP/MSP etc, they can actually do something about the situation - their position carries clout. Politicians need to remember that their position exists to serve the voters in their constituency.....therefore I'm sure a few complaints from his local voters may spur a wee change in attitude. For the record, I am a fully paid up SNP member, and support 100% an independent Scotland, but MP's, regardless of their party, need to start tackling the REAL issues affecting this country.

Read somewhere that you can appeal a yellow card if it was for simulation, due to the fact it can impact directly on a players reputation if it is found to be false.

He needs to start scoring goals......ultimately, that's what he'll be judged on longer term.

The main problem that I see we've had recently isn't the tactical system used....it is the execution of that system. 4-4-2, 4-3-3, 3-4-3, 4-5-1.....all meaningless if the players can't string 2 passes together.

any of the 500 billion top notch supporters - after all, they are ALL financial experts.

The January window has traditionally never a good opportunity for decent quality players though..... Any transfer money should be reserved for the main summer window. Best option for the Jan window might be some decent loan signings.

It's also easier to sack & replace the manager, than it is to sack 11 players & replace them.... As it stands, I don't think we are anywhere near the sacking stage, I just think a bit of perspective as to where the ACTUAL blame for poor performances is required. The performance of the players last night was shocking - they were even arguing amongst themselves on the pitch at one point - so I think ANY manager could have been on the touchline & still not got a better performance out of them. The responsibility does however return to the Manager...it is now up to him to identify what went wrong & implement a suitable solution which sees a much improved performance for the next match.

The point being....If I follow my bosses instructions, but do a pi55 poor job, It's me that is responsible & me that pays the price. Ultimately it is not my boss that gets the grief for my poor working. It IS my bosses responsibility to deal with the poor performance though.

but they're the ones who are physically out on the park playing & failing to do their job. If I don't do my job, it's not my boss that gets fired - he hired me & instructs me what to do....

At what point do/should the PLAYERS start accepting responsibility for their performances??? After last nights performance against Hearts, the vast majority of criticism appears to be directed towards the Manager. While the manager is quite rightly deserving of some criticism, I believe it is unfair for him to be the sole recipient. The manager is responsible for: - buying the players - picking the squad - picking the tactics - Daily training & Match preparation - In-Game tactical changes However, once those players cross the touchline, the manager is limited in what he can physically do. Is the manager responsible for Tav's positioning (mainly) at the 2nd goal??? Is he responsible for Wes's inability to find a team-mate with a long ball??? Is he responsible for the players not moving or passing??? When players are not playing well during a game, the manager only has 3 options to change personnel....so what happens when 6,7,8+ players are not playing well??? I believe that no matter what tactics MW had instructed the players to use, they would have failed. Look what happened in the one real moment when the team actually passed & moved well - Dodoo scored. for the rest of the game, they were lacklustre & lifeless. The Manager can yell at them from the Tech area all he wants but in reality it ain't gonna make that much of a difference. Some may say that the players are simply not good enough, I would disagree. These are professional footballers, getting paid VERY well for doing not a lot (really), yet I have seen folk down the park on a Sunday with better skill & control than these guys showed last night. Hearts players get paid & are rated considerably lower than ours, yet looked a vastly superior team. Their manager set out the tactics well, but it was players on the park that executed the plan properly. So I ask again, when does the responsibility shift from the manager to the players????

yet...only just won his 1st trophy (I believe)...

based on last night....no we can't. The accuracy of the long balls was terrible. It doesn't matter who is upfront, if we're putting it straight to the opposition - that was the problem....we punted it upfield, Hearts collected and instantly re-applied pressure.

I actually think that last nights long ball tactic was one of the major failures, we don't know if this was a tactic from MW or just the way the game played. Far too many long balls from the back went straight to opposition players. this allowed Hearts to control the game. IMHO, if we had played more on the deck, from the back, it would have allowed us much more control over the pace/tempo & put us in the driving seat. On the flip side, would the individual performances allowed for a more passing game - that is debatable. Players were taking 3-4 touches too many - especially at the back - which invited Hearts onto us. Get the ball moving freely & make them run around. You can't control the game if you don't have the ball.

This may be controversial, but I don't blame the manager for tonight's performance - there was nothing he could have done. Tonight's performance lies 100% at the feet of the players - they were totally dire. They are supposed to be professional footballers, yet were completely incapable of passing to their own team. There was no movement, vision enthusiasm, energy or skill (of ANY sort). They weren't even a close 2nd to every ball - they were lucky to be 3rd to each ball (and that's being generous). Once the players cross the touchline, the manager's influence is limited. I'm actually convinced that we didn't even have 11 players on the pitch.

Exactly....progress must be ongoing & consistent. Consider the goal of most teams that are promoted to the top division - Don't get relegated. Then consider that we are currently sitting in 2nd place, granted a bit further behind Ceptic than we'd hoped, but in 2nd none the less. If that position can be maintained or at the VERY worst 3rd place, then we will be doing well with regard to progress. After this season back in the top division we will reap increased rewards from league payouts & sponsorship etc, which can be re-invested back into the club & again aid with the progression. So far, several of the latest signings haven't exactly set the heather alight, but there is still plenty of time & we aren't struggling to maintain league position.

Res 10 WAS passed though, which paves the way for a share issue, and as such probably dilution of shares (unless he takes up his allocation). Res 10 was always the most likely to be passed as it only required 50%. To not vote on the basis of protecting your share value just doesn't make sense.

The path is cleared for a Share issue as it stands - Res 10 appears to have passed. This will dilute his holding unless he stumps up for more shares. Res 11 would have allowed the board to pick & choose who got the new share options & therefor only dilute the holdings of the likes of MA & Easdales etc.

and you have proof of this "fact". Just because you say it is fact, doesn't make it so. I don't see diluting his holding as a reason for not voting on Res11. Res 10 appears to have been passed, so a share offering is likely to happen (just that it would be open to ALL shareholders), so his holding may still get diluted.

I would be logical that McCoist would have been spoken to before the AGM based on: 1 - He holds a 1.25% shareholding - not massive, but still significant 2 - He is a friend & ex-manager of the Club & supposedly a personal friend of DK & other board members. It is also logical to assume that he would support the current boards resolution, primarily based on point 2 above. So far there is nothing known to indicate that he didn't support the resolution. So it comes down to why he didn't vote. If the resolution had been passed, I'm sure McCoist would have been given the opportunity to buy shares so that his holding wasn't diluted. Even though the outcome is effectively the same, did McCoist officially abstain from the vote or did he just not vote at all???

...and you know that for a fact??? I am not say that isn't the case, but it is 100% guesswork & supposition. I just think it's unfair to single out one single shareholder through the "benefit" of hindsight. As it turns out his vote could have swung the vote, but likewise if everyone else had voted, they may have swung the vote. Remember....McCoist didn't vote against the motion - if that was the case then vilification would be justified.

If the vote had passed without McCoists vote, would anyone have cared??? If the vote failed with a percentage greater than McCoists holding, would anyone have cared?? The fact that it appears to have failed with a percentage less than McCoists individual holding now seems to make him Enemy No.1. Why didn't he vote - who knows. He may have been planning on attending in person to cast his vote, but had to change his plans. He may have filled out the voting slip wrongly - we simply don't know. What was the total percentage of votes cast??? If 20-30% of shareholders didn't vote, is it REALLY fair to single out one person???

Miller's not a natural goal scorer - never has been, he's a worker who makes things happen for others. So far, I've not been impressed with Garner. He's similar to Miller in that he appears to do a lot of running & likes to get in about defenders, but I don't think there is an out & out goal scorer there. I would like to see more of Dodoo.....there was a lot of fanfare when he signed about being chased by top english sides & that he was a £7-8m player. That being the case, why's he struggling to get into the team??? I would also like to see Waggy getting some more games. The guy scored plenty of goals last season, yet hasn't really had a chance this time.

IMHO, this is all a bit unfair on McCoist.....he is getting the blame for the resolution failing, thanks to hindsight. If he was the only shareholder not to vote, and it failed then fair enough. However there were many voters who didn't vote. McCoist is getting singled out because he is a high profile shareholder who happens to have enough % to have swung the vote. If Res11 failed by 1.3%, would anyone have cared if McCoist had voted or not??? Yes, it is strange that he didn't vote, but is anyone questioning why the others didn't vote???

I don't disagree, but folk are talking about the lease deal with SD and how SD are saving so much cash, when it isn't the case. It would be interesting to see the deal that RR has in place with SD to provide the retail "expertise" to the store.