Beattie 0 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Profile page on the website shows the new squad numbers. Notable changes: McCulloch is now #6. Davis is now #7. Whittaker is now #16. Velicka is now #17. Aaron is now #19. Fleck is now #29. Danny Wilson is now #66 (was 72.. seems a pointless change.) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Ally 0 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Whittaker is now #16.Velicka is now #17. Aaron is now #19. Fleck is now #29. Danny Wilson is now #66 (was 72.. seems a pointless change.) All those seem pointless. McCulloch is now #6 That one is a little concerning. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 That one is a little concerning. More than a little. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beattie 0 Posted July 23, 2009 Author Share Posted July 23, 2009 Just watched an interview on the website with McCulloch and when asked about central defence stated that he'd 'had a chat with the manager who has a wee idea for me'.. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazza_8 233 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Just watched an interview on the website with McCulloch and when asked about central defence stated that he'd 'had a chat with the manager who has a wee idea for me'.. McCulloch being at Rangers is concerning. McCulloch as a potential CB regular is ultra concerning. But hey, maybe he played there when he was 7 so he'll possibly be reverting back to his natural position. In about 9 seasons Danny Wilson will eventually reach single figures if he continues with the slow drop in numbers. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_2010 0 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 adam keeping 11? would they switch a player they were trying to move before he left though? good to see davis at #7. Don't like lee - but hopefully he can prove us wrong and recapture his form that had me and a few others at the time at least eating our words before we threw them up again - strange at #6! The younger players do seem pointless... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beattie 0 Posted July 23, 2009 Author Share Posted July 23, 2009 Suppose giving Fleck 29 from 53 and so on is just dropping the numbers lower (Whittaker going to 16 from 28 and so on) so it opens up the bigger numbers for players further away from the first team. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_2010 0 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Thing is 29 is still pretty large... will he be getting 11 or 15 next year? sucks for the fans who have fleck 53... at least there is a new shirt every year... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beattie 0 Posted July 23, 2009 Author Share Posted July 23, 2009 Folk are daft to get squad names before the deadline anyway. Amount of lads I saw going about with '24 Cuellar' last season before he left. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gribz 743 Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 (edited) Squad numbers dont actually mean that much, just 10 years ago the 1-11 was still in place and nobody had a squad number, they just fought for a starting jersey. McCulloch at 6 is concerning. I see that as a natural centre half number! Edited July 24, 2009 by Gribz 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.