Rousseau

That's a good move. Decent level. Hopefully he'll come back ready to play.

What happened to McGooch? Hibs have got a loan signing -- promising but not the finished article in Henderson -- and less money than we offered. That is not a great deal. They are weakened. I think it worked out OK for us.

That's exactly how I see it. If Rangers weren't interested I'd sign for them -- good move in many ways professionally -- but we are, so the only reason is money. Very disappointing turn of events, but not the end of the world; he was never a required signing.

It's a great move for the clubs, but I'm struggling to see how it benefits Allan? It's a shame it has come to this but he was Hibs player to sell, and they weren't willing to even entertain an offer from us, which is fair enough. We will move on.

I don't think ones boyhood allegiance comes into it. He's a professional; he'll do whats best for his career. Hibs have got a great deal. I'm not so sure it's a good deal for Allan; undoubtedly a talented young player, but will he get a game? It's a better package than we were willing to offer, and it was unlikely that we were going to get a bid accepted anyway. However, it's in the players hands: he can accept it or refuse it; I'm sure we'll be on the phone in January if he refuses.

Yes, but is that his fault or the clubs?

I'll do the QotS game.

Cool display, but I think the white stripes took something away from the lettering; it should've been a more uniform background colour (Blue or Red) to contrast the white lettering -- then it would've popped! But I'm nit-picking! Nice to see the displays, and hope to see more!

There is only one strikers spot, and that belongs to Waghorn at the minute. Miller and Clark don't start, but Warbs has a tendency to bring on a striker/forward for a winger at the hour mark. Miller's movement and good positioning got him two goals against Hibs, which I can see being his role this season; Clark is similar IMO (not ability-wise, but in the role he'll play). Both will be deployed wider, which only leaves Hardie for the main strikers position. If Warbs thinks Hardie is good enough then we've probably got enough forwards this season, but if not I think there will be another signing. While a loan signing may not be the most desirable signing, I think it might prove useful to get cover for Hardie and let him go out on loan, so he's ready for next year.

I don't think anyone is complaining about the fact this nutter actually got on the pitch; the disappointing aspect was the time it took for them to make a move to remove him. It was annoying because it slowed the game down, which it was anyway at the time.

I don't think Arsenal do have the best balanced squad; it's too top heavy, and even then it's mostly attacking midfielders. Also, I don't think they've got great forwards. Apart from Sanchez, who'll give 15+, there is only Geroud, also 15+; Welbeck is not a goalscorer and neither is Walcott. For me, Geroud is the only out-and-out striker they have. I think Man U and Chelsea are more balanced now, if missing a forward/striker or two. Arsenal will do well, but I still doubt their mentality; I'll probably doubt it until they do it. Man City and Chelsea have got it, and Man U have, or had it, but have been brought down a peg or two after the last two years and have to show it all over again. It's the 'steel' that wins Leagues. Both Chelsea and Man City have that steel. Man U have bought well and could do well. Liverpool are a bit of an afterthought, which is a shame. They've bought well but they'll be fighting for Europa League IMO. It might be the most closely fought title-battle in years, with Chelsea, Man City, Man U, and Arsenal all looking capable; and I'd go with that ordering. I'd like to see Man Utd do well this year though, and Chelsea, but it's very hard to predict; I think we'll all be surprised.

I'm disappointed Gallagher has been let go, but there must be a reason for it. Because we all think he deserved a chance after a couple of games doesn't mean he was actually good enough. I would've liked to see him get a few games this year, but if Warbs doesn't want him then I'm willing to trust his judgement. When I think about it though, he's a bit of a shoehorn player; not a striker, not a winger. He'd only really be a squad player. I would've kept him as a squad player, but I suppose he may not like it, and may be right for his career that he move on. I can see him scoring on Friday! Who knows? We might sign him up again if he proves himself! Good luck to the lad.

As good as the result against Hibs was, I did feel we needed a stabalising influence in the middle in the form of a proper defensive/holding midfielder, who could link with the defenders. I felt Holt, Law and Halliday were reluctant to drop deep to pick up the ball and keep us ticking over, which is understandable because they are attacking midfielders. Big Eustace could be just the man we need. I can see Holt being dropped, just for his inexperience. Not a bad player to come off the bench though; pace, energy and attacking intent.

To be fair, it does kind of sum it up.

Meh, that was against a very open Ajax side; he wouldn't get the space to do that in Scotland -- someone would have assaulted him way before. Decent player, but I don't think he fits into the new model, unfortunately.

To be honest, I dislike the idea of banning press as it sets a very bad precedent. However, according to the article we are not banning the press, simply two individuals, which is not uncommon for football clubs. It's a shame BBC Scotland -- is it BBC Scotland or BBC as a whole? -- have felt the need to do this; it does feel like an over-reaction, but I think they're tied to an extent: they have to support their employees, and I suppose they won't possibly admit that we have a point. Would it not have been better to criticise the publications of Spiers and McLaughlin, and therefore draw attention to future articles, rather than banning them? Banning them feels right, but is it the best thing to do?

If this 'verbal agreement' was inserted into his contract, what actually constitutes a 'bigger club'? Of course, Rangers are, but if another side came in, like Aberdeen (of which there have been rumours), would they be considered a 'bigger club?' It's a terrible 'agreement'/clause in any case because it's so subjective.

Admittedly, I hadn't thought it was beneficial, but on your claims I did a quick search. It turns out there are a few health benefits, although I am not convinced of the legitimacy of the sources! However, the few health benefits listed have nothing to do with being an athlete, or nothing that would help them; for instance reducing Gallstones, reducing risk of diabetes etc. Mental health could be a good one, but it's not directly relevant to an athlete. There are plenty stories of sportsmen struggling with mental health issues, but drink is often a cause. I would love to read a good source that details the benefits to an athlete, if you could point me in the right direction? Perhaps I would revise my statement by suggesting it maybe is beneficial in moderation in some instances, but I still do not think it is beneficial in general -- at least not as beneficial as not drinking -- to an athletes performance. Well, if I take my premise that alcohol is not beneficial to an athletes performance, then I think it demonstrates an inability to refrain from such a substance, which IMO is a "lax attitude." Again, perhaps I am being excessively strict here, but I just do not like to see it in a professional athlete. An athlete should be committed to a strict regime in order to achieve peak physical performance. I do not think alcohol consumption is conducive to such a goal. It may have benefits to a degree, but I don't think they directly improve an athletes physical condition. As a general rule athletes should not drink, but perhaps some may need to be prescribed alcohol for a certain symptom, but that would only be to combat a deficiency which inhibits his/her ability to reach peak physical performance. Can you agree with that?

I think my post was taken too seriously. I merely suggested drinking is not something I agree with in an 'athlete'. I was talking about athleticism, not talent. In my opinion, drinking has a negative impact on a player's athleticism. Their 'wee drink' is perhaps not that dangerous, but I think it's symptomatic of a lax culture when it comes to athleticism. I wouldn't say Gazza was a good athlete, nor Best, but they had sublime talent. For me, Bale is not the most talented, but has great athleticism. Admittedly, I don't know how much of that is down to his natural body type, or his application, but athleticism can carry a player to a new level. Ronaldo is a supreme athlete, Messi not so much, but Messi is more talented than Ronaldo; the mix makes them equal -- or perhaps Messi's talent just shines through. Now, perhaps a wee drink is not that bad in the big scheme of things, but it can't be beneficial, and to me, it implies a lax attitude in general; but, of course, everyone's different.

They're supposed to be athletes. If they applied themselves in the same way as Murray or Hoy, then they'd be so much fitter and successful in their careers. Scottish society has a drinking problem, but it should not then follow that our 'athletes' be given free reign to so as they please, or be given excuses. I don't accept that a so-called 'professional athlete' should be allowed to drink and eat as they please. If they are not applying themselves 100%, then they're amateurs.

I actually feel for Stubbs like I do Warburton. They can't and shouldn't talk about it, but the 'journalists' keep asking the same questions. It must be infuriating. Best thing to do is accept the bid...

How many times does he have to answer the same question? What a poor excuse for journalism.

I'm waiting for Jim White. Anything else is speculation and hearsay. The Colin Stein talk had me embarrassed! I know the history, but the little memories of certain goals and performances will elude me; Well before my time...

100k-250k is much more realistic than the 900k+ that was banded about by the media. I can see us increasing but, when we can get him for nothing in January (usually deals tend to happen when the club realise they're losing the player, I think?), I wouldn't go over 500k.

I'm in also. I was a little too late to start last season.