Ric
-
Posts
8,051 -
Joined
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Ric
-
-
Keep Baccus, if he's willing to stay.
If he's going to somewhere like Aberdeen they will claim he's worth buttons while at the same time claiming their big lad up front is worth £20m. We won't get a decent deal from them, and for me, I see it as an easy write off if he continues to play to the level we know he can.
3 -
Here is a copy of the interview with Robinson from the Herald (might also be in the PDE too)...
Quote“We need to refresh ourselves and get new bodies in,” Robinson said.
“There's not loads wrong - we are sitting fifth in the table after a year where we finished in the top six.
“There's a lot of good stuff, a lot of positives, it's now up to me to try and keep that going and sign players that I owe to the current players to give them another boost and a kick-on. We are going to have to do a little bit of wheeling and dealing to do that.
“Everybody would have [taken our current position at the start of the season], of course. But now we are here, when you get something in life you get used to it, and we want more of it. That's the challenge, to give that.
“People were talking about Europe and a couple of people were talking about breaking the top two up and things like that earlier in the season.
“If we can remain a top six side, that's a huge goal for us. And you can start to establish yourself, you can start attracting more players and moving forward. That's our aim, that's our challenge, to try and repeat what we did last season, and we are on course to do that.
“But when you have had a taste of stuff and gone unbeaten and you taste a few defeats, it's harder to take for everybody.”
The reality of St Mirren’s financial station though means that Robinson will have to evacuate to accumulate when it comes to January signings.
“Certainly, there will have to be people going out for me to strengthen,” he said.
“There's not a bottomless pit to go and invest in the squad. We need to move people out and it's up to me to do that.
“That's the hard bit of football because sometimes, through nobody's fault, you need to create some funds to strengthen areas we are weak in. We need to do that, and we are going to spend the whole of January trying to do that.
“We have already got plenty of targets. Attracting them and getting them up to Scottish football is quite difficult at times, but we are working on it.”
--
“Unless it's a ridiculous offer, and then it becomes a financial decision for the football club, which I totally understand, the board are in no rush to sell anybody,” he said.
“It will have to be at a very good price, and we must have a replacement for them.
“Our challenge is, for the resources we have, we have got a very good starting XI. We don't pay them particularly well but to replace them on that level of resource is very, very difficult.
“To strengthen your starting XI is very difficult but if we can overall enhance our squad and add a little bit of freshness, it's been a very, very good year and we have to try and kick on.
“I'm confident the group of boys we have that we want to keep at the football club, will still be here.”
0 -
11 minutes ago, Jacky1990 said:
Im actually impressed they bothered to give the views of more than two clubs to be honest.
Makes a change.
I think if the BBC were to do a proper one of these it would include all 4 divisions as well, the Premiership isn't a bubble in terms of transfers.
No, the article is what it is, a lazy and cheap vox populi. A common tool of the BBC, because it means they don't need to do any work.
3 -
Just think... Tiny Wharton in a VAR world.
0 -
1 minute ago, MazzyStar said:
That ref looks like he’d struggle to run the length of the pitch let alone keep up with game.
It was at a time that many players struggled with the same.
1 -
Going to be honest, I'm surprised to see 19 pages of this, when the game was over by the 6th.
We lost two quick goals, then a player to a swipe that made contact. In my youth that just came with the territory of being a goalkeeper, but looking at it now I totally understand why it's a red. I don't think there was intent and Hart did dive downwards, but I feel we just have to accept it and hope that there is consistency when other players do similar.
Other than that, was there much to the game? Celtic didn't tank us for 5 or 6, which the OF can do especially if you are down a player, but other than that I'm not sure there is much to say about the game, certainly not 10 pages of chat anyway.
1 -
1 hour ago, Thistle_do_nicely said:
This isnt intended as any sort of whataboutery, more making the point that its a dangerous PR game to play - easy to forget that referees have the power to collectively give Rangers a middle finger and either refuse to referee their games until they get an apology/the club get punished, or ref any games in the top flight whatsoever.
Yeah, the only reason the focus is on Collum and Rangers is that Rangers have made it all about Collum and Rangers.
Interesting to see that the SFA is now claiming Rangers are putting their officials at risk.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67885053
In short, I think Rangers have a reason to question the decision making as it seems like the offside (while correct) wasn't brought into the equation until the SFA was pushed on it. That said, Rangers (or either side of the OF) should not have their claims considered more pressing/important/etc than other clubs. We've all seen Collum decisions go against what we see on the video replay.
It's the entitlement from Rangers, and their absolutist attitude, that frustrates me. However, that is crashing headlong into the (seeming) arrogance from officials. Referees tend to come from "the professional classes", in positions of power they do not expect to be challenged in. Jobs like lawyers and teachers. I wish no winner in a fight between the two.
24 minutes ago, lindz105 said:Double down by the SFA...
You've got your answer, they are hitting back at Rangers, both for their claims and possibly putting officials safety at risk. That certainly comes across as doubling down.
2 -
9 minutes ago, Widge said:
As I say, Collum is a poor referee, but then if he is, they all are which is the biggest issue.
I certainly don't think Collum stands out, the only reason the thread is focussed on him is because Rangers specifically naming him in their press release.
0 -
Not sure if this is bad journalism, lazy journalism or an oversight, but the "what does your team need" article on the BBC...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67876115
It covers every team except Livingston and St Mirren. If you are doing an article based on the league, perhaps include all those teams?
The article states: "This is a sample of the views from those who responded to our call for opinions on their club's transfer wish list."
Are you telling me not a single Livi or St Mirren fan replied? I'd find that kind of odd. Even if that was the case, doesn't the BBC realise that it should have gone off and grabbed a couple of comments just to provide the thin veneer of equal treatment.
0 -
3 minutes ago, coprolite said:
But they’ll make mistakes and the explanations won’t always accord with the exact rules or the facts (as established by multiple angle slo mo replays).
Refs will always make mistakes, to err is human, and while it was only at pub league level I've officiated games and I honestly do not have the mental fortitude to do it competently.
3 minutes ago, coprolite said:Anything less than 100% accuracy with the benefit of hindsight will lead to conspiracy theories anyway.
I think even with 100% accuracy certain sets of fans will complain anyway. I mean, St Mirren fans are well known for expressing their opinion of decisions made - you might have noticed!
It all comes under "reasonable doubt" doesn't it? We have to aim any "solution" to the broad majority rather than the niche conspiracy nuts.
0 -
9 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:
Literally what would be the point? How would Willie Collum saying “I didn’t see it hit his hand” make any fucking difference?
It's about trust.
If you have multiple angles, slow motion replays, and several different officials watching play and the referee gives something that is clearly not what you would expect, given the rules, then there needs to be a way to square that circle. The fact that we now have recordings of the officials speaking, when previously we didn't, offers an easy way to confirm the decision making process.
Is it a case that most fans don't fully understand the rules? Yes, and I include myself there, but when you have other experts, ex-players, ex-officials all saying "I don't know why they have/haven't given that" then it leaves a vacuum that is filled with conspiracy theories.
-1 -
16 minutes ago, craigkillie said:
It should have been a red card...
Yes, it should.
16 minutes ago, craigkillie said:Saying a ref "pointedly refused to explain his decision making" is a bit of a weird thing to say, because it makes it sound as though they regularly come out and explain their decisions.
It's fair to say they are different times, I think the onus on a referee to come out and explain a decision when it is contentious is greater now - especially with mics for both the ref, their assistants and the VAR system.
16 minutes ago, craigkillie said:He made a mistake, and I'm sure when he watched it back and saw the extent of the contact he realised that.
Massive leap of assumption, surely? You have no idea whether Collum agreed it was a mistake or that he even recognised it as a possibility. Which sort of loops back to my initial point, he has made no attempt to explain his actions. Do I want referees forced to explain every single action? No, and it would be unreasonable, however the example I gave was as clear as day. It is those incidents that bring about the issues regarding their "vow of silence".
0 -
Just now, Jacksgranda said:
Keep them coming, but don't give up your day job.
You: 22 posts in 2024 / Me: 4 posts in 2024
1 -
1 minute ago, Jacksgranda said:
F*** me, the thread's only opened 9 minutes and he's posted 3 times already!
Here's a 4th.
That 3-0 loss has really done a number on you?
Now.. do you have a relevant post or are you just in here to whine?
-1 -
4 minutes ago, bennett said:
To be fair, that is an accurate visual representation of the Rangers BoD when the slightest thing doesn't go their way.
2 -
Let me get the ball running (ha! pun!) with a Collum decision that is long remembered by St Mirren fans. If I showed you this picture what do you think is happening?
The full video (although on 480p) is available here with the incident being about 1:30 into the video.
It was 0-0, and Boruc rushes miles out of his box, makes no attempt to tackle the ball, instead tackles the man. You can see this is pretty much an open goal, and Boruc completely wiped him out.
Collum's decision? Yellow card.
Now to be fair, the rules regarding this are different now to then (it was in 2008), but the rules also stated at the time that was a red card offence.
Strachan himself admitted Boruc was lucky to stay on the pitch at the time, and as far as I am aware Collum has pointedly refused to explain his decision making.
0 -
According to the Daily Record (yes, I know..) Rangers have apparently called for Willie Collum to be banned from refereeing games.
This, to me, is classic entitlement. A refereeing decision goes against you and suddenly the pram is empty and the toys are everywhere. Before anyone decides to throw all this at VAR, you need to remember that Collum is no newcomer when it comes to "questionable" refereeing decisions. Long, long before VAR existed he has officiated the game with his own "personal take on the rules of the game". What might strike some as surprising about this little rant from Rangers (oooh, they do love a press release, with each and every one a humiliation), is that I could probably list 10 or 12 bizarre refereeing decisions Collum has made that very specifically benefited the Old Firm. In fact, I am trying to think of a single time my team has benefitted from a "Collum appraisal".
However, perhaps my memory is playing tricks with me, so in this thread I want people to give their opinion of Collum decisions that he has made against their team when playing the Old Firm. Let us, once and for all, list everything in one place, rather than it being piecemeal in separate game threads.
I have added in a poll too, but ideally I want people to reply with instances of Collum decision making that seemed really fucking odd at the time (and I trust there will be enough replies for several pages with that topic!). What would be nice is if you mention any follow up; was there any appeal? If so, how did it go?
1 -
2 hours ago, FTOF said:
Away.
You threw all your toys out of the pram when we signed him.
Utter nonsense..
0 -
12 hours ago, Captain_Sensible said:
Anyone still doubt Zach Hemming?
There’s no way Trevor Carson is saving that yesterday. Too short for a start
Definite upgrade
The DOB having a fit at the end of last season was a godsend
Oh, go on then...
Do I still doubt Hemming? No. If you look at his previous season there was definitely reasons to be concerned. He looked poor, very poor, and unreliable too. Plus picking up injuries. All in all if you looked at him on paper from last season you wouldn't have chosen him to be 1st choice for the "third best team in the country". Those doubts have, by and large, been dispelled.
Do I still have doubts about Hemming? Yes. I still think that his positioning and command of his box needs to improve. That's an experience thing, which is reflected in his age rather than ability.
That said, he's playing in a team that doing very well, that is the opposite to the team he played with last season. It's not a like for like situation, Killie were struggling, we are not. I think to really see Hemming under pressure we'd need to go on a bad run. Of course, we don't want that to happen, we all know most keepers are heavily influenced by their confidence
It should be said, I'm not singling, or ever singled, Hemming out. I can be, and have been, critical of other players - just like all of us are. Has Hemming done better than I expected him to? Definitely. I also think he's done better than most fans expected. I was genuinely worried that even with Robinson and Langfield, Hemming wouldn't make the grade. Whether his performances are down to confidence, training, getting better, who knows...
As for the Carson comparison, Carson remains a good keeper, it would be an "utterly Captain thing to do" .. (
) .. to mention that in the last game where the two met, one lost 4 goals the other lost none.
1 -
Got to be honest, I've never been keen on managers speaking to the press regarding existing players re-signing. This has not changed with Robinson's comments on Strain and Baccus.
The fans know the situation, these things always feel like a shoutout to agents.
0 -
23 hours ago, gannonball said:
Ooft a bit of a heads gone from nowhere here, bit ironic really...
You mean like Saudi, who literally beheads people who don't follow strict, bigoted and hateful religious rules? You even check yourself with the claim of irony.
Obviously your echo chamber sanctity would be threatened by accepting this fact, until then you can put in pithy responses to randoms on an Internet board I'm sure you'll be rewarded by "God" for such subservience.
10 hours ago, Spring Onion said:I hadn't until YOU tagged it in. Chill out man. You really seemed to have lost it here.
This is a message to both of you.. If you two wish to be sock puppets for religious hate, you go ahead, don't expect other people to do so.
This isn't unknown, this isn't unreported, this is something that some people are actively choosing to ignore because it doesn't directly affect them.. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-64338876 ..while giving the "well, they are going to earn a lot of money". Reacting to me, rather than those who actively support such a hate regime, certainly shows the depths of both your characters.
2 -
1 hour ago, Jacky1990 said:
Irish man Neil Lennon might be a contender for the Ireland national team job.
All over the BBC Scotland page.
You are not wrong, and it definitely goes along with my initial post, the only thing with Lennon is I'd say he's got decades worth of connection with Scottish Football whereas Jota, for example, was here for a couple of seasons, and choose to be a weak individual, f**k over human rights, and support religious hate all so he could get some extra cash. Why the f**k are we still reading shit about this piece of trash human being?
0 -
Got to say, I am really thankful to the shitty red tops for keeping me informed of the careers of Jota and Kent. Here I was, completely oblivious of their situation because after all they have f**k all to do with Scottish football now, yet thanks to really lazy journalists and the assumption that anything touching the OF is "newsworthy" I have been kept abreast of every single thing in their lives. From whether they got game time to how they spend their lives away from the club.
12 -
8 hours ago, forkboy said:
A whole massive part of our legal system is premised on the principal of rehabilitation..
Well... it's meant to be.
You are totally right, though, and I was about to make a post pointing out similar. How Martindale and MacKay have gone about things "after the act" is notable. Martindale has owned up, done his time and by all accounts is the sort of person in private that you see in public (ie: a down to Earth guy, willing to accept his mistakes). MacKay on the other hand has spent his entire time mitigating and deflecting, he just doesn't come across as an honest actor. It's just personal but I am sure that if MacKay was asked how he'd avoid doing the same as before he'd answer "just don't let people find out" rather than "I just wouldn't don't do it again".
0
) .. to mention that in the last game where the two met, one lost 4 goals the other lost none.
Willie Collum; good guy? complete dick? corrupt? / ..and should (Old Firm) clubs "have the power to ban him"?
in Scottish Premiership General Chatter
Posted
I support independence and, by extension, the SNP but Dornan can gtf with that sort of move. It comes across as pandering and quite frankly not something he should be focussing on. There are considerably more pressing matters at hand.