ZimmyGer

I'll put this very simply....our chances of winning the title are reduced with this news.

Seems remarkable we would want to drop our captain for a boy we've never even seen..........

The boy has done excellent, he has a habit of drifting in and out of games but he has a lot of talent and massive potential. This may be harsh and just bad luck on his part but in the main we have looked less effective in midfield since he came in and we've lost two big games..... I personally wouldn't have played him on Sunday if Edu was on form and McCulloch was fit but the case is he probably will start as neither factors are true. I think he needs more time to develop before OF games are the norm for him but needs must............

I think the interesting thing is nobody can be sure how either team will line up. They deserved their victory last time but I felt the actual analysis of the game was a bit overstated in their favour....that's also not normally how they play and it was certainly a dire performance from us in the second half. Does Lennon try the same tactics again, make it tight, sit back and try and counter us with the possibility they win the midfield anyway or does he stick to the more attacking formation they normally use and think they'll have enough? As stated you can never guess Walter's tactics but I think we will go with three in midfield.....Edu deeper and Ness and Davis more central, a degree of flexibility exists if you go that way, Naismith will start and the rest depends on fitness..............

The overall performance of the midfield since Tynecastle has been worrying, scrappy and disjointed. I suspect with McCulloch unlikely to be fit we will see 3 in the middle on Sunday...

The cry for unity is a daft one. There are too many differences and far too much history. Just because different factions believe they have the best interests of the club at heart doesn't mean they can work together or indeed would want to. If the Trust is an issue you simply dismiss them, join up and try to change or wait until such times (if ever) your mind is changed about them. And of course the RST is failing at reaching out to the support but in terms of the specific ongoing disagreements-it just goes around in circles. Other groups can continue to do what they think is right for the club and build their groups in their own way.

Frankie again I think that's a distortion of what actually happened and the blame imho for what happened actually lay elsewhere beyond MD. It was raised at a further RST meeting and the point was taken onboard by the Chair. It was a reflection of another aspect of things and those collectively at the meeting share some blame but it was a good week after the meeting. I don't think it was put forward for FF for any gain for FF or MD (what would it be) but it did show a lack of respect to other board members. See this is the problem, you are so keen to discredit someone you are missing the detail and the point of what was exchanged. Of course MD pretty much agreed with some other posters on here I wasn't really fit to serve the board so maybe there is more than in common on here than you think.

Er wasn't aware of it I don't recall it ever coming up at any meeting. The second question since it was not in the 2009 accounts then I wouldn't be aware of it-would I?

I don't know if there's irony or not I know there are different issues and levels to the debate. There are clearly issues that require dealt with, I have my own very strong opinions on things and what requires to be done but I'm far from sure how that sits with the wider view of the RST membership. This board seems slightly ironic to me though.

So you've changed your tune from it never happened to aw grow up....fascinating I'll leave you to it.

I think you've missed the point somewhere I resigned from the RST over a year ago and I have been critical of various aspects of RST and FF since. The current revelations are new and I have no knowledge of them. That's the truth but I don't think you are listening.

No I think you'll find legally it was threatening behaviour in context,tone and content.

If I were aware of these issues I would take the same approach. Anyway I can see where this heading, you can see from the tone of the other replies the mentality involved which I'd rather avoid.

I think the amount of change that has happened within the RST board is major and is ongoing. I don't underestimate the lack of success and issues I stated that earlier on, the RST has clearly bottomed out appeal wise. The reality is its going to take time but how you expect a board to reflect the opinion of its members when it doesn't actually know them is I would suggest problematic. You also need to realise what is obvious to you is not reflected elsewhere-that's the reality we all face-some things seemed very obvious to me but they were never reflected by the RST board nor the membership. Times however are changing I think the RST will move away from a protest angle into a more progressive angle but perceptions won't change overnight and there will always be issues.

It happened way before I was ever on the RST board-it was more to do with debating on FF-my understanding of the situation is that there were individuals close to those on the RST board who fell out at some stage-I wasn't involved in any of that but I personally got abuse, nothing heavy but clearly they got my personal details from somewhere. I'm not going to run to the police but I'm certainly not going to sit down with people like that. There wasn't as far as I'm aware of the issue being directly related to the RST per se.