lady-isobel-barnett

We might have won that game if we had played it on the ground. And we can't really blame the surface as we've already played on it last month. Hellish watching football on that pitch but no excuse as QP were by far the better organized. Weather played a part in QP's favour but that's because of the way we went about things. Typical McCall, brings on a second striker and fails to play anybody wide right. Takes about 8 or 9 minutes before he changes things. No excuses for that.

Good question. Hodson's not played for three weeks and then only as a late sub. He was on the bench last week, which suggests he's match fit. Looks like we've been taking a kid glove approach with Brownlie, so I would imagine Hodson's the fitter of the two. That or we don't want to push Darren back too early.

Just the one thing. Odds of bumping into Chick Young are too short for comfort.

I thought Hodson was the one we were bringing in a week or so ago, but McCall later mentioned that he may have lost out on that particular player. None the wiser and not important. What is important is Hodson ticks a few boxes and I'd regard him as a genuine squad player. He looks similar to Foster in so much as he can play in both right and left back positions.

I thought there may be a chance of one of our regular centrebacks making a return. If Hodson starts I'd rather see him play right back than in the centre. Something a wee bit more comforting, a brand new signing playing full back rather than centreback.

Just to make myself clear that if boycotting/shunning a match is seen as the way to go then I suggest targeting a Cup game as being preferable. I personally don't think staying away from Firhill is the route to go down. Firstly I believe that increasing the TJF membership is a weapon in itself. Secondly and repeating myself yet again but from a matchday point of view our masters are at their most vulnerable within Hospitality.

East Kent Jag II's correct re if you are going to boycott a home match it's best a cup game. Whether a ST holder turns up for a home league game or not is largely immaterial. They've already got our money.

This is what I was getting at earlier. I'd say it's fair to assume that at the given time the number of adult ST holders of 2 or 3 years standing will have been over 1000. They can on a technical basis lay claim to be representing those "members". I've never contacted them to tell them they don't represent me. So maybe it's akin to the new organ donor thingy, based on assumption? I'll be even angrier with them if 3BC refers to this Trust membership caper in any form. I don't know if you can withdraw your membership of this Trust but gut instinct tells me not to. It could be case of a tent and urination.

Realise that but I wouldn't be surprised if the Trust in question claim they do.

re not the Jags Trust but the other Trust. I seem to mind something along the lines of all adult ST holders that had held a ST for at least 3 years (?) at a certain date (maybe about 4 year ago?) were automatically members. If that's the case the "not the Jags Trust" Trust can claim to be representing a membership of I imagine well over 1000. Some clarification may be required.

Ideally we want to first get club sponsors and major advertisers on the fans side. They'll be caught up in the middle of this. We don't really want to jeopardise their goodwill but may have to. How we do that is the hard part. My gut feeling is the Club's soft underbelly involves matchday hospitality. Maximum effect from minimum effort and all that.

Take your point but even if the "financial action" is the way to go, from a marketing point of view visual & aural protests are of value. I agree that on their own the powers that be would simply ride the storm. But we need to have tangible protests from a publicity point of view. For instance Friday night televised games should be a particular target. Also, and this overlaps into the "financial action" territory, match sponsors would not want to have their product marginalised on a day of protest. One area at least where I would think matchday protest would be effective, again in association with "financial action", would be in matters of "match hospitality". I can leave it to others to imagine just how much embarrassment and apologising could ensue from "fan action" in that specific area.

It's either the Trust's Front of Thistle or the Thistle Trust Front. All I know is both are clandestine organisations who hate the Romans.

No matter how you feel about this, shouldn't we just leave this to the current Club Board to decide which way to go? They clearly know what's best for us, and on a relative basis our opinions are of little consequence.

The fact we are hearing the breaking of this news from TJF and not the Club speaks volumes. It's the Club's decision after all, so you would assume they would want to be the ones to inform the Jags fanbase of their decision. Presumably by a prepared statement. Each of us will draw our own conclusion re this matter. I know what mine is.