vikingTON

Agreed that both played well in the second half, but my bugbear with the first half performance rests with those two players specifically. The different strategies with the ball - to either fire the ball into central midfield for a flick on or then just shelling it randomly long kept failing. Raith were totally incompetent in not taking advantage of that to put the game to bed, by scoring a 2nd or 3rd goal. My complaint is this. Given the in-play situation as well as the temporary authority figure on the touchline, why aren't senior players taking leadership to cut the crap out and respond as they see the situation on the park? We're hardly playing some Guardiola-style automated system. If the original game plan (particularly given the lack of any centre forward) isn't working, you need to adapt on the pitch. Gillespie as captain and by far the most experienced player right now, should be calling such necessary changes to our approach. Roy Keane or a similar midfield presence (regardless of actual ability) wouldn't tolerate a first half display like that in possession of the ball without making decisive changes on the field. You change how your team mates use the ball on the pitch, and let the manager ask questions later. My criticism of Wilson is that while he can set an excellent example in his actions on the ball (such as trailing 3 Raith players along for a free kick in the second half), he doesn't use that authority to demand the same of others in the team. As a central midfielder, Wilson should have been furious at the nick of our use of possession in the first half - and alongside Gillespie should have imposed a change. He is an experienced campaigner by the standards of this current squad - his horizontal attitude is a minor issue for this team, but will prove a far greater limit on his own career unless he can be more assertive. In football ability and physical presence Wilson is better than the 'Scott Brown' jobber playing for Raith today. But Brown is a constant gobshite who won't tolerate from his team mates the full first half of nonsense as we produced in the first half today. That's why he's on a better career track than Wilson right now.

Assuming no health issues etc., an alternative candidate also sprung to mind during today's match. Is: A recognised football manager (as opposed to caretaker/player coach) A high level Hall of Fame level, club legend figure at GMFC - as opposed to birthday caird pish like the kit man being inaugurated Not contracted to another organisation and confident enough in his ability to revive his standing sans big pay packet So why not get the feelers out to Rowan Alexander? Alexander would be a box-office and actual management presence in the dugout, in a sporting situation in which we have nothing to lose. 1 point from 9 games is not salvageable by a random caretaker team from within, and we're clearly not going to attract a high quality of external candidates right now. Looking beyond the very high probability of relegation, the club needs a first team manager with the character to lead that part of the organisation rather than just mewl impotently in every engagement activity - and someone like Alexander would certainly offer that. If not Alexander specifically, this is the sort of profile that GMFC needs - not just for this season, but the likely turbulent future too.

Sandilands got an impressive number of goals and assists at Montrose last season from playing through the middle. A few good flashes today doesn't change the reality that he is being wasted out wide. Robertson was diabolical as the link player to the rotating ringer forward today - that's the position that Sandilands (or Savoury 'when fit') should occupy instead. And as ever we should be binning a formation with gubbins wingers, as soon as we actually have two fit strikers available.

I think he might have been trying to defend the (non-existent) honour of Easton, who had just completed his dying swan impression. Fully agreed with your judgment of the game.

To paraphrase Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, when it was claimed that no one wanted to lead the Soviet to overthrow an enfeebled, bourgeois, golf-playing regime (Provisional Government in Russia: Graham Barr on Sinclair Street): "There is such a person!" Bring Him Home.

It's not - or shouldn't be about that. It's about his absolutely toxic, woe is me presence poisoning the well. After the Livingston game he started chucking random players under the bus - whereas he pronounces himself thrilled at narrow defeats brought about by his own incompetence. And his tantrums about Carse etc. - all to get media sympathy for himself alone. There is a less than 10% chance that we'll be playing in this league next season. The club needs to unite and the first step in that process was to remove this gurning fucking loser from the premises.

So much for the lack of coaching badges and several other flimsy defences - this decision could and should have been taken long ago.

1) What, yet again, is your definition of 'improvement'? That was your original premise - could we risk improvement? (a curious situation for a professional sporting organisation to be in) - so WTF does that actually mean? 2) You are once again asserting - not asking the question - that There Will Be A Financial Cost: well what actual, concrete evidence is there for this claim about the practical elements? Counter point: A GMFC board that has proven so gullible and incompetent to rack up a £300k budget black hole because an already defaulting sponsor pinky promised some money, may not actually be Ruthless Titans of Industry when it comes to deciding whether to gunge a first team manager too. A counter point supported, notably, by their supine indifference to the plummet in form and performances in March and April 2026 - when there was a clear opportunity at the end of the campaign to balance the costs of a new management team against a new first team budget. So this mewling will not do. What actual evidence is there that the GMFC board really want to remove Murray, but have their hands cruelly tied by a lack of funds? Be extremely specific. 3) Murray leaving of his own accord is irrelevant to the discussion. And once again - GMFC has added more than half a dozen first team players in the last month, so this lack of agency problem (for which there is zero evidence) would be entirely self-inflicted anyway. Murray's failure was screamingly obvious in April - our next game will be in October. It still is not the responsibility of the fanbase and paying customers to dig the GMFC board out of any such hole, nor give them a free pass for such utter incompetence.

Is it an eco-friendly washing machine, in line with their position at the frontier of energy-efficient technology? Disappointed that we didn't at least get a new toaster to avoid those randoms in a cupboard in the club office setting the main stand up in flames.

That doesn't answer my point: you're wondering if we can take the 'risk' that things might improve. What exactly is the criteria for improvement you're setting here? On the park - off the park? But while we're at it, GMFC could have diverted some of the half a dozen (if not more) players added to an already bloated squad since the end of August alone - and/or emptied more and/or not signed a few of those already in the building. So let's not continue this horseshit premise that the club is literally incapable of acting. They have had countless break points since at least the Ross County game in April, and have chosen not to take them. They have instead doubled down on Murray. Each decision was an active choice, not a default option. That the club board have made as much of a total arse of first team management - in much the same way as they have by setting the operating budget and counting on pinky promises from Graham Barr's long-distance phone buddy - is 100% not the problem of the fanbase and paying customers.

No, because GMFC doesn't own Cappielow. And it never should given the parade of charlatans and busted flushes that attach themselves to the club.

What exactly do you mean by this?

...And the supine indifference from the GMFC board seemingly continues, beyond another standard opportunity for this toxic loser of a manager to have his belongings dumped in a cardboard box outside Sinclair Street this morning, after our Highland trip. I won't be wasting my time on Saturday's home match or any future ones while Murray is in charge. GMFC is insulting the credulity of the fanbase by keeping this clown in place.

Point of order: this season actually started with Murray/GMFC bottling out of playing Civil Service Strollers. It's important that the Banter Years fully records both the depths and immediate flashing red alarm signals of this nick of a campaign from June.

It's not apathy but rather a total disconnect between fan actions and club response. The GMFC board have - for no fucking intelligible reason - chosen to marshal their PR resources around defending Saint Ian Murray from day 1 of his abortive campaign in June, when hiding from Civil Service Strollers. It is quite frankly less stressful and a lot less expensive to detach engagement and just let the architects of this specific campaign own every record low that they're achieving on a weekly basis. I won't be back this season until Murray is gone because there is zero evidence that the current GMFC board will respond to fan sentiment whatsoever. As opposed to 'suggestions' for a charity bucket, where Barr and co. clambered over themselves to reflect The Will of the People within 24 hours.