slimjim1690

Looks like Barkas got his wish to play out

Them McCrorie brothers are some keepers, clean sheet specialists.

This is what we are all hoping for mate, hope he proves me wrong as well.

I sometimes have problems with camera.

That last minute summed them up.

Paper cuts can be a bastard TBF.

World's overpopulated mate got to thin out the herd.

I'm beginning to think that we won't see him back, or at least not the same version of him.

Oh fucking great, after watching that 1st half performance he'll be thinking to himself "ya dancer, I've signed for the right team"

After next Thursday we can finally get down to playing a settled team for the 1st time this season without the forced changes imposed due to suspensions players coming back from the Euro's etc, moving forward I would be expecting SG not to be making so many wholesale changes that he's been forced into making so far and that has to be a benefit for the team going forward.

We've been tracking this clown for 2yrs, let that sink in.

It wasn't meant so much as a criticism mate, it's just that he's said it so often in the past that I think he says it more in an attempt at throwing opposition managers off

I've long since stopped believing anything SG says when he mentions anything about players earning and keeping the jerseys.

Still not convinced

Aye Thursday

They won't pay the 25k to ask.

Yes I get that mate, but what I'm trying to say is, what if we don't sell this window? , the losses will still be there, does that mean we're going into admin again if the board cannot afford them?, so hypothetically, let's say that the board can afford to keep this same squad for another season which they'll have to do if we can't sell then the question I'm asking is, let's say we sell Alfredo for 16-18M why can't we then spend a large chunk of that on a replacement rather than hunting around in the basement bargain department?, it doesn't change the finances for this season if we couldn't sell this window. Now yes it would be a massive gamble by the board, but given the riches for winning the league this season would it be a gamble worth taking?

While I agree this is probably true from speculation that we've been used to hearing, I'd like to put it out here, what indeed if no offers come in for any of our players then what is the boards plan then? I'm certain this would also have to have been planned for, so if we can afford to keep the squad in that scenario then given the importance of winning the league this season, why then if we were to sell someone, [if we can afford to keep the squad as is] why then do we have to go for a bargain bucket replacement? it would undoubtedly be a big ask of the board but I'm just asking.

I think it's quite nice actually, mind you I'm talking about a guy who once bought a pair of grey shoes only to be asked by the wife "why did you buy a pair of green shoes" I was like ...WIT???

Thing is he must have checked it before posting, agrees with the thumbs up and go's ahead and posts it, the schools definitely have got something to do with it.

It seems to get lost in all the "Souness was hard as fuck" rhetoric that he could play some sublime football as well, a real world class midfielder.

If Alfredo isn't deemed to be ready next week then IMO Sakala has to start, we can't start with Itten again he's just to ponderous in possession, we will need to be at it right from the 1st whistle and it was pretty obvious when Sakala came on last night that he was forcing their defence into more hurried clearances by being in their faces, clearances that more often than not fell to one of our players enabling us to start attacking again, even if most of our attacks came to nothing it did give us the opportunity to keep pushing forward, now I understand that the wee fella has only played a couple of games for us and we don't yet know if he'll be the answer but he'll definitely keep their defence occupied a hell of a lot more than Itten and hopefully if not him then he'll create openings for others.

Not sure whether I should ask this now, but what was the reason given for changing the away goals counting double? I'm old enough to remember it 1st being introduced and the reason was to encourage the away team to attempt to try for a goal/goals away from home making it a more entertaining game as before the rule was introduced away teams would go abroad and shove 9 men behind the ball and punt it now and again to some poor cunt up front hoping to get a 0-0 to take back to their own ground, and at least have an extra 30mins if needed, which was great it you're drawn away 1st leg. It made for some really boring football but the away goals rule helped to change that, so I'm asking what's to stop teams/coaches reverting back to similar tactics that would make Livingston look like innovators of modern football, I seriously think this is a step backwards and feel like the authorities are just making change for changes sake, or am I missing something?

Think I may have solved Angie"s defensive problem for him, seeing as how none of his goalkeepers are any fucking use why not play without one then he could have 3 CB's in defence. Shit forget it, you would need 3 CB's who knew what they were doing for that to work.

That Smile , I was so happy for him on presentation day, he was running around like a kid on christmas day, his jaws must have been aching going to bed that night, such an infectious personality.