Official Neilson Out Thread ( merged )

[KyleLafferty]

I know it’s a neilson thread but since DS is mentioned.. I thought he would be perfect for Hearts, bombed Berra, brought Kirk up tried to play attacking football. However he never ever learnt. The amount of times our centre backs had to sprint 30-40 yards towards our own goal was scary. A good manager adapts and in out situation he should have made us hard to beat then build from there. Then he played the worst Hearts goalkeeper I’ve seen in my life, and never dropped him till it was too late. He might have kept us up but that night in Paisley was chronic and there was no signs of improvement. Even a Shan Levein bet Hibs at Easter road.

[A_A wehatethehibs]

1 hour ago, Ethan Hunt said:

There is no such thing as a “cast iron guarantee” in football. That said, regardless of who the manager would have been, Hearts being promoted out of this tinpot league is about as much of a cast iron guarantee as you’d get. 

 

Neilson was no more of a guarantee than anyone else. If you are going to use his past record as credentials for a guarantee, then using the same process you can also guarantee he’ll feck off when people say a few bad things about him, or a Mickey Mouse English club come for him, or when he doesn’t fancy a shot in the big league as there is a cushier number lined up.

 

I have no doubt Stendel would have had us top of this league, playing far better football, and we’d be in a stronger re-building position.

 

 

 

Stendel did not play good football he played headless chicken football leaving our weak center backs and Gk exposed, and won just 2 league games out of 15. What did he demonstrate? That he plays high risk football.
 

So persisting with him, would have been a massive, massive risk of a Laszlo-esque failure to get promoted at the first time of asking. You have no doubt, so in other words you “think” he’d have had us top of the league but in reality, you don’t know. It could have gone absolutely tits up in a massive way due to the risky way he plays the game, and we could’ve been sat in 2nd-3rd or worse right now. You just do not know. That was the clubs thoughts anyway. He was not trusted, he did not win the trust of the hierarchy.
 

A rational decision was made that Neilson would just about guarantee us promotion with no frills, he’d be able to bin players and get enough job doers in to get us up. If Hearts get promoted, that decision is proven to be the correct one - fully vindicated. And we then go from there. 

[Bazzas right boot]

16 hours ago, soonbe110 said:

2nd choice at the time I think. Levein mentioned it on the radio at the time Robbie was announced.  Said he had spent an afternoon having a discussion with him in early Nov.  Don’t have to be Einstein to work out he was trying to bring him back as coach. Would probably have saved Leveins DoF role. 

 

Probably saved us fro relegation... 

[John Findlay]

Still yawn, yawn, yawn.

[soonbe110]

25 minutes ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

Probably saved us fro relegation... 

Indeed 

[Rick Sanchez]

https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/fp/craig-wighton-says-he-was-banished-to-reserves-at-hearts-before-dunfermline-talks-and-makes-pars-dundee-and-raith-loan-claim/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

 

Pretty shan treatment tbh, especially with the numbers involved and the fact he'd have been a decent option from the bench.

 

Basically calling Robbie a liar as well.

[Cut The Crap]

7 minutes ago, Rick Sanchez said:

https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/fp/craig-wighton-says-he-was-banished-to-reserves-at-hearts-before-dunfermline-talks-and-makes-pars-dundee-and-raith-loan-claim/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

 

Pretty shan treatment tbh, especially with the numbers involved and the fact he'd have been a decent option from the bench.

 

Basically calling Robbie a liar as well.

 

Suspect this type of thing happens all the time at clubs, to be honest.

 

Players rarely blab to the press about it though.

[GinRummy]

7 minutes ago, Rick Sanchez said:

https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/fp/craig-wighton-says-he-was-banished-to-reserves-at-hearts-before-dunfermline-talks-and-makes-pars-dundee-and-raith-loan-claim/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

 

Pretty shan treatment tbh, especially with the numbers involved and the fact he'd have been a decent option from the bench.

 

Basically calling Robbie a liar as well.

I disagree. I think it's absolutely fine to do that with someone who's not in your plans. He was told he wasn't going to play and then told to train with the reserves. I really don't see the problem in the slightest.

[NANOJAMBO]

2 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

I disagree. I think it's absolutely fine to do that with someone who's not in your plans. He was told he wasn't going to play and then told to train with the reserves. I really don't see the problem in the slightest.

 IF what he says is true (in relation to this one point alone, below) it's a disgrace - it's restraint of trade and it's illegal -

 

"He says a loan move away was also offered – as long as it was not to Dunfermline, Dundee or Raith Rovers because of their proximity to Hearts in the Championship table."

 

One minute he's in RNs plans, 4 months later he isn't and not only that, the club is placing severe restrictions on a player (who they don't rate) can ply his trade. 

[A_A wehatethehibs]

19 minutes ago, Rick Sanchez said:

https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/fp/craig-wighton-says-he-was-banished-to-reserves-at-hearts-before-dunfermline-talks-and-makes-pars-dundee-and-raith-loan-claim/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

 

Pretty shan treatment tbh, especially with the numbers involved and the fact he'd have been a decent option from the bench.

 

Basically calling Robbie a liar as well.

If he was sent to the reserves I would suspect something else transpired eg. a covid breach. He’ll give his biased side of the story to the local press, to basically deflect from the fact that he goes down as one of the worst forwards to ever play for Hearts and has been rightly punted. For us it’s a non-story. 

[DH1986]

Restraint of trade 😂

 

He was our player and who we don’t want to loan him to is 100% down to us. 

[NANOJAMBO]

1 minute ago, DH1986 said:

Restraint of trade 😂

 

He was our player and who we don’t want to loan him to is 100% down to us. 

Top debating.

[Rick Sanchez]

15 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

I disagree. I think it's absolutely fine to do that with someone who's not in your plans. He was told he wasn't going to play and then told to train with the reserves. I really don't see the problem in the slightest.

 

It's bang out of order if there's only 3 or 4 other players training with the reserves. He could have been useful for that astro pitch that was only good for kicking it long and running.

 

Being worried about who you sell a player to when you deem them not good enough is shitebag behaviour.

[GinRummy]

12 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

 IF what he says is true (in relation to this one point alone, below) it's a disgrace - it's restraint of trade and it's illegal -

 

"He says a loan move away was also offered – as long as it was not to Dunfermline, Dundee or Raith Rovers because of their proximity to Hearts in the Championship table."

 

One minute he's in RNs plans, 4 months later he isn't and not only that, the club is placing severe restrictions on a player (who they don't rate) can ply his trade. 

You know you've said it's a disgrace and then not said why. I doubt if it's illegal as he's still being paid and was told he's free tp find a loan.

 

Regarding the loan move not being to certain clubs that's just looking after our clubs perceived interest. I don't see an issue, there are plenty other clubs.

 

[NANOJAMBO]

1 minute ago, GinRummy said:

You know you've said it's a disgrace and then not said why. I doubt if it's illegal as he's still being paid and was told he's free tp find a loan.

 

Regarding the loan move not being to certain clubs that's just looking after our clubs perceived interest. I don't see an issue, there are plenty other clubs.

 

Not true - you can't dump a player and insist he sees out his contract just because you are paying him. Given the limited time involved re his contract that's how clubs get away with it,  in the majority of cases. 

 

To suggest that he can't go to 3 of 11 other teams in the championship is a clear restraint of trade*. IF what he said is true , he could have been allowed to go anywhere with agreements on not playing against Hearts. But wait, can Hearts even do that (my understanding is that type of contractual condition is not allowed, certainly in England ) ? 

 

[davemclaren]

Much ado about nothing. 

[John Findlay]

1 minute ago, davemclaren said:

Much ado about nothing. 

Nail on head.

[WageThief]

1 minute ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Not true - you can't dump a player and insist he sees out his contract just because you are paying him. Given the limited time involved re his contract that's how clubs get away with it,  in the majority of cases. 

 

To suggest that he can't go to 3 of 11 other teams in the championship is a clear restraint of trade*. IF what he said is true , he could have been allowed to go anywhere with agreements on not playing against Hearts. But wait, can Hearts even do that (my understanding is that type of contractual condition is not allowed, certainly in England ) ? 

 

 

Think you are a wee bit confused.  A football club refusing to let a player go on loan to rivals isn't restriction of trade, like a hairdresser not being able to move to another salon.  

 

Plus, you CAN add clauses that restrict employees (like hairdressers) moving to rival firms within reason (as set by many legal precedents).

[Dazo]

Read the article and still wondering what we have supposed to have done wrong ? We absolutely have every right who we want to loan our players to, especially I’d imagine since we are still paying some of his wages. Shame it didn’t work out for him but he’s to blame he was playing/training for the reserves. 

[DH1986]

38 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Top debating.

There was nothing to debate about.

[hmfc_liam06]

1 hour ago, GinRummy said:

I disagree. I think it's absolutely fine to do that with someone who's not in your plans. He was told he wasn't going to play and then told to train with the reserves. I really don't see the problem in the slightest.

 

Pretty much standard practice but still...big bad Hearts and all...

 

You tell a player he's not required, player remains part of the group. Player then downs tools, arses about and generally brings down the atmosphere at training.

 

That's exactly why every team in football has at one point or another put a player who isn't wanted, in the reserves.

[Dia Liom]

28 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Not true - you can't dump a player and insist he sees out his contract just because you are paying him. Given the limited time involved re his contract that's how clubs get away with it,  in the majority of cases. 

 

To suggest that he can't go to 3 of 11 other teams in the championship is a clear restraint of trade*. IF what he said is true , he could have been allowed to go anywhere with agreements on not playing against Hearts. But wait, can Hearts even do that (my understanding is that type of contractual condition is not allowed, certainly in England ) ? 

 

 

Come on! that's a lot of rubbish.  When everything is said and done, Robbie got a tune out of him for half a season, Wighton got his loan to the pars.  If there was any possibility of us getting taken to court over it at any stage, I'd be very shocked.  This kind of thing goes on all the time in all types of business, let along football which most people accept is a bit more cut-throat.

[Berra than you]

24 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Read the article and still wondering what we have supposed to have done wrong ? We absolutely have every right who we want to loan our players to, especially I’d imagine since we are still paying some of his wages. Shame it didn’t work out for him but he’s to blame he was playing/training for the reserves. 

We have done absolutely nothing wrong and this likely happens all the time at several clubs. Folk will just take shots at the club for any reason sometimes.

[NANOJAMBO]

30 minutes ago, WageThief said:

 

Think you are a wee bit confused.  A football club refusing to let a player go on loan to rivals isn't restriction of trade, like a hairdresser not being able to move to another salon.  

 

Plus, you CAN add clauses that restrict employees (like hairdressers) moving to rival firms within reason (as set by many legal precedents).

Hearts are refusing to let him go to not a single  club : they have said there are several (three) out of 11 . That leaves eight clubs  , 2 of which are part time. 

 

Re your other para - yes,  and that is to do with with "proprietry" aspects which are specifically covered in law. For context : I spent a bit of time studying the Ashley Cole case when he fell out with Chelsea and actually threatened to take Chelsea/The FA to court. His legal opinion said the "proprietry" aspect detailed in employment law , in reality, does not apply to footballers (ie footballers are restricted unreasonably/unfairly) and his lawyers reckoned he had a good chance of winning. In the end it didn't go to court (obviously). Coles case wasn't exactly like Wighton's but there are similarities.

 

Hairdressers aside - for anyone reading this who knows the situation in Scotland - can a club loan  a player out and put conditions in regarding the players ability to play for his loan club against his current club) ? I couldn't see anything on the latest SPFL loan conditions - and I'm sure I read some where that this cannot be done in England. If that is allowable then I don't understand why Wighton couldn't go to those clubs (assuming he was wanted by them). 

[NANOJAMBO]

4 minutes ago, Berra than you said:

We have done absolutely nothing wrong and this likely happens all the time at several clubs. Folk will just take shots at the club for any reason sometimes.

Or maybe some of us wanted to have  a debate instead of taking shots at others. 

[Berra than you]

1 minute ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Or maybe some of us wanted to have  a debate instead of taking shots at others. 

Fair enough if that is what you were after. Wasn't really a dig at you, more just KB in general just now. In your points above to another poster about loan agreements, I think it's common practice everywhere that players on loan get an agreement that they can't play agaisnt their parent club. I think the incident you are thinking of down south was a permanent transfer (Snodgrass to west brom?) and that's where it is different. In any case, Wighton has been allowed to go on loan to one of the club's he supposedly wasn't allowed to move to. Either we have changed our mind and something triggered that change, or it was never the case he wasn't allowed to go there. 

[Auldbenches]

3 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Or maybe some of us wanted to have  a debate instead of taking shots at others. 

We patiently waited for him to produce the goods.  After nearly two years he gets a handful of goals, leaves then slated us.  No need to say what he did. 

Maybe if he scored goals and didn't look like his arse was flapping whenever through on goal.

Aye, it's our fault.

 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

1 hour ago, A_A wehatethehibs said:

If he was sent to the reserves I would suspect something else transpired eg. a covid breach. He’ll give his biased side of the story to the local press, to basically deflect from the fact that he goes down as one of the worst forwards to ever play for Hearts and has been rightly punted. For us it’s a non-story. 

How the **** can you randomly accuse him of the Covid breach

 

He did alright for us this season (judging at a very low benchmark of quality) and his treatment seems a bit off. Not that I really care.

 

What I do care about is that he joins the list of woeful, woeful signings - something the Budge regime truly specialises in. 

[luckydug]

12 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Hearts are refusing to let him go to not a single  club : they have said there are several (three) out of 11 . That leaves eight clubs  , 2 of which are part time. 

 

Re your other para - yes,  and that is to do with with "proprietry" aspects which are specifically covered in law. For context : I spent a bit of time studying the Ashley Cole case when he fell out with Chelsea and actually threatened to take Chelsea/The FA to court. His legal opinion said the "proprietry" aspect detailed in employment law , in reality, does not apply to footballers (ie footballers are restricted unreasonably/unfairly) and his lawyers reckoned he had a good chance of winning. In the end it didn't go to court (obviously). Coles case wasn't exactly like Wighton's but there are similarities.

 

Hairdressers aside - for anyone reading this who knows the situation in Scotland - can a club loan  a player out and put conditions in regarding the players ability to play for his loan club against his current club) ? I couldn't see anything on the latest SPFL loan conditions - and I'm sure I read some where that this cannot be done in England. If that is allowable then I don't understand why Wighton couldn't go to those clubs (assuming he was wanted by them). 

Are you related to CW ? 

It's the only reason I can see for you getting in a froth about a non event and a common practice in football. 

Plenty people on here were against him being loaned to any rival clubs especially as all the clubs mentioned helped to shaft us. 

Maybe Robbie remembered the flak he got for loaning Bobby to

St Midden. 🤔

[adambraejambo]

His contract was running down and we told him he wont feature. Sound like we done him a favour giving him loads of time to talk to other clubs. Not sure why he moaning about us telling him we would refuse to loan him to Dunfermline Raith or Dundee when he is now actually at Dunfermline on loan. 

[KyleLafferty]

Only took Wighton 3 years to grow a set of balls. I actually didn’t mind him, felt Levein set him up to fail every time. Neilson got the best out him but still wasn’t what we needed. Scored some important goals.

[Bazzas right boot]

5 minutes ago, KyleLafferty said:

Only took Wighton 3 years to grow a set of balls. I actually didn’t mind him, felt Levein set him up to fail every time. Neilson got the best out him but still wasn’t what we needed. Scored some important goals.

 

Think it's more to do with the championship bring his level at this time rather than a manager getting more out of him. 

 

Dropping a level and no fans suited him imo. 

[Robbo-Jambo]

Good riddance. 

 

A few goals but never good enough for Hearts. 

 

Never been so sure a player was going to miss a pen in the cup final shoot out. 

 

Not all his fault obviously but he was absolutely bricking it when he walked up. 

 

Get the feeling he actually does not even believe in himself tbh. 

[A_A wehatethehibs]

24 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

How the **** can you randomly accuse him of the Covid breach

 

He did alright for us this season (judging at a very low benchmark of quality) and his treatment seems a bit off. Not that I really care.

 

What I do care about is that he joins the list of woeful, woeful signings - something the Budge regime truly specialises in. 

 

It wasn’t an accusation it was a suspicion. I used the word “I suspect”, as in, I would not believe anything he said to the press to be the full truth. I suspect that there’s something else probably happened. Eg. A covid breach or other incident in training. Or a fallout with the manager. It could be absolutely anything. But you’ve read what he’s said to the press and just lapped that up as gospel truth? 
 

If a manager has binned you to the reserves you have to have done something to cheese him off. I suspect Wighton has left that bit out of his story. But maybe it was just the insipid performance at Dundee. I didn’t see any fans like you complaining about him being binned or mistreated after that shocker. Most of us quite happy that being the last time he ever plays for us. Delighted in fact. Yet now folk come out the woodwork saying he’s been mistreated? The guy was an absolute waste of a wage and rightly binned from the club alongside the 15-20 other shite bags inherited by Neilson that he has rightly binned.

[Rogue Daddy]

1 hour ago, hmfc_liam06 said:

 

Pretty much standard practice but still...big bad Hearts and all...

 

You tell a player he's not required, player remains part of the group. Player then downs tools, arses about and generally brings down the atmosphere at training.

 

That's exactly why every team in football has at one point or another put a player who isn't wanted, in the reserves.

This is, IMO, is closest to the mark. Possibly had a falling out with RN, has known most of his teammates for 2-3 years and doesn't need/want him negging them out.

[Nookie Bear]

Yeah, thanks for your 3 league goals, Craig.

 

Now shut up and **** off.

[Dazo]

1 hour ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Or maybe some of us wanted to have  a debate instead of taking shots at others. 

You said we were a disgrace ? What was it you wanted to debate ? 

[Lone Striker]

42 minutes ago, adambraejambo said:

His contract was running down and we told him he wont feature. Sound like we done him a favour giving him loads of time to talk to other clubs. Not sure why he moaning about us telling him we would refuse to loan him to Dunfermline Raith or Dundee when he is now actually at Dunfermline on loan. 

Yes... that's my thoughts too.        It does raise the question of why the "no loan to Dunfermline" rule was changed (and why) .... if what he's saying is actually true, of course.

 

 

[GinRummy]

53 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

Yes... that's my thoughts too.        It does raise the question of why the "no loan to Dunfermline" rule was changed (and why) .... if what he's saying is actually true, of course.

 

 

Could just be we are that wee bit more ahead in the league.

[WageThief]

2 hours ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Hearts are refusing to let him go to not a single  club : they have said there are several (three) out of 11 . That leaves eight clubs  , 2 of which are part time. 

 

Re your other para - yes,  and that is to do with with "proprietry" aspects which are specifically covered in law. For context : I spent a bit of time studying the Ashley Cole case when he fell out with Chelsea and actually threatened to take Chelsea/The FA to court. His legal opinion said the "proprietry" aspect detailed in employment law , in reality, does not apply to footballers (ie footballers are restricted unreasonably/unfairly) and his lawyers reckoned he had a good chance of winning. In the end it didn't go to court (obviously). Coles case wasn't exactly like Wighton's but there are similarities.

 

Hairdressers aside - for anyone reading this who knows the situation in Scotland - can a club loan  a player out and put conditions in regarding the players ability to play for his loan club against his current club) ? I couldn't see anything on the latest SPFL loan conditions - and I'm sure I read some where that this cannot be done in England. If that is allowable then I don't understand why Wighton couldn't go to those clubs (assuming he was wanted by them). 

 

I can't see how not allowing a player to leave for a championship rival (however silly that notion may be) could be a restraint of trade.  I'm pretty sure the biggest clubs refuse to deal with any other clubs in the country for certain players.    

 

Although maybe if it was challenged in court they'd win I suppose.  In which case we'd have just told Wighton he was part of the plans but might consider going to a non-rival for some good ol' American "game time".  

[Robbo-Jambo]

1 hour ago, Nookie Bear said:

Yeah, thanks for your 3 league goals, Craig.

 

Now shut up and **** off.

Pretty much where I am. 

 

Not good enough for us, his face always tripping him and shat his pants with the pen in the cup final. 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

2 hours ago, A_A wehatethehibs said:

 

It wasn’t an accusation it was a suspicion. I used the word “I suspect”, as in, I would not believe anything he said to the press to be the full truth. I suspect that there’s something else probably happened. Eg. A covid breach or other incident in training. Or a fallout with the manager. It could be absolutely anything. But you’ve read what he’s said to the press and just lapped that up as gospel truth? 
 

If a manager has binned you to the reserves you have to have done something to cheese him off. I suspect Wighton has left that bit out of his story. But maybe it was just the insipid performance at Dundee. I didn’t see any fans like you complaining about him being binned or mistreated after that shocker. Most of us quite happy that being the last time he ever plays for us. Delighted in fact. Yet now folk come out the woodwork saying he’s been mistreated? The guy was an absolute waste of a wage and rightly binned from the club alongside the 15-20 other shite bags inherited by Neilson that he has rightly binned.

No, not bothered at all about him leaving. He was generally hopeless.

 

If we’re talking about insipid performances, though,  Neilson should be packing his bags by now. Budge should have packed hers about two years ago. If we’re applying the same standards, that is

[GinRummy]

3 hours ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Not true - you can't dump a player and insist he sees out his contract just because you are paying him. Given the limited time involved re his contract that's how clubs get away with it,  in the majority of cases. 

 

To suggest that he can't go to 3 of 11 other teams in the championship is a clear restraint of trade*. IF what he said is true , he could have been allowed to go anywhere with agreements on not playing against Hearts. But wait, can Hearts even do that (my understanding is that type of contractual condition is not allowed, certainly in England ) ? 

 

You highlighted the bit I wrote about still being paid yet ignored the part (in the same sentence) saying he could go on loan. He was under a contract with us. I just don’t see the issue with us having some of the decision making on which club he is loaned to. If that constitutes a restriction of trade then it shouldn’t imo but I’d doubt if it did. 

[Bazzas right boot]

Helped knocked hibs out the cup. 

 

Shame it didn't work out overall tho. 

Cheers  and good luck for the future. 

 

 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Smith's right boot

[Jamboelite]

10 hours ago, NANOJAMBO said:

 IF what he says is true (in relation to this one point alone, below) it's a disgrace - it's restraint of trade and it's illegal -

 

"He says a loan move away was also offered – as long as it was not to Dunfermline, Dundee or Raith Rovers because of their proximity to Hearts in the Championship table."

 

One minute he's in RNs plans, 4 months later he isn't and not only that, the club is placing severe restrictions on a player (who they don't rate) can ply his trade. 

What? Restricting trade? Tell me at what point does a player get to demand the terms of terminating while  under contract ?

 

Bizarre post.

 

A contract works both ways to protect the player and the club so they both  have a say in how that contract is terminated and under what terms.

 

Hence why a club may offer a loan and the player gets to say no im not going.

 

You seem to suggest because we have chosen to not play him then all the power is given to the player...thats not how contracts work.

 

 

.

Edited February 18, 2021 by Jamboelite

[Gards]

Is Neilson gone yet?  Just with this being the official thread on it and all that.....

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

22 minutes ago, Gards said:

Is Neilson gone yet?  Just with this being the official thread on it and all that.....

The Levein one ran for about eight years before Super Gran finally woke up from her morning nap

[Gards]

1 minute ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

The Levein one ran for about eight years before Super Gran finally woke up from her morning nap

Supergran....well there we are.

 

Someone who put her own personal money upfront to save the club from oblivion.

Someone who found like minded investors to work with the club to raise it from the cesspit of Wonga and Co.

Someone who continues to work tirelessly to do the best for the club - albeit makes mistakes at times.

 

But yeh...supergran....wonderful

[Fozzyonthefence]

11 hours ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Not true - you can't dump a player and insist he sees out his contract just because you are paying him. Given the limited time involved re his contract that's how clubs get away with it,  in the majority of cases. 

 

To suggest that he can't go to 3 of 11 other teams in the championship is a clear restraint of trade*. IF what he said is true , he could have been allowed to go anywhere with agreements on not playing against Hearts. But wait, can Hearts even do that (my understanding is that type of contractual condition is not allowed, certainly in England ) ? 

 

Up to Hearts (and the player) who they loan players to. How the **** is it a restriction of trade?🤣

[No Idle Talk]

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/sport/football/robbie-neilsons-hearts-tactics-laid-19866925

 

Robbie explaining why we keep playing with two holding midfielders.

 

He does seem to be sending out contradictory messages about his tactics. Not long ago he said he wants his Hearts team to play 4-4-2, here he is essentially telling us it will be 4-2-3-1 for the rest of the season. 

 

I can't imagine winning the centre of midfield area will be any less important next season when we are facing stiffer opposition. So when exactly will we see this 4-4-2 ideal he spoke of?