weeyin

They do, but generally not the full whack. (And in the case of guys like ATS, their contract was just run to expiry).

If it wasn't his idea to change the formation (although I think it probably was), he should get even more credit for being able to change something imposed on him in such a short space of time. Some teams take months to adapt to new tactics - we had to make the change over the winter break.

Of course there is a always a risk that a player will not work out - where they come from doesn't alter that fact. The greatest managers with budgets in the hundreds of millions are deemed successful if 50% of their signings turn out well. Similalrly, if an academy produces one first team quaility player in a season, that is a high success rate. We measure up well on both those stats the past couple of seasons, but we can't depend on producing an entire first team squad from our U20s. Our model means we need to bring in older players that we can also develop and move on for a fee. The fact we need to sign free (or low fee) transfers means it will always be a risk. They need to have potential to develop while, at the same time, not featuring in the plans of their current employer. For every Kipré in that situation, there will be multiple Strakers. I think we've improved that ratio in the past couple of seasons.

Fraser Kerr, Dom Thomas, Craig Moore and Bob McHugh in a starting 11 would have you beelin'

Certainly possilbe with the weird salary caps and roster rules that US sports teams are subjected to. Not unusual for players to join a squad and then be offloaded without playing to make room for someone else's wages.

Be interested to read your analysis of his tactical failures from the second half of last season.

Vancouver now. Bottom of their Conference and currently losing to New England.

The last year we got to the final, Hibs were unseeded in the 2nd round and played Ayr Utd at home. We were seeded and played Ross County away.

Aye, the seeding in this competition is virutally worthless.

And Dunfermline.

So less tika-taka and more chicken tikka?

So, as I mentioned earlier, if a sponsor offers 150k for a logo to be put on the shirts, or (generously) 120k if the shirts are sold in the summer without it, how many sales would need to be made to compensate for that 30k difference? (Remembering it's profit that needs to be calculated, not turnover). Also, if your mates are buying it later then it is still a sale - the club will still get a cut, so factor that into the calculation. And if they were my mates I'd be suggesting that if they can afford a holiday in Portugal, they can afford a nice shirt. The club shop sells some smart golf shirts if they want to keep it MFC related.

Apart from our double cup final season, I don't suppose we are all that attractive to sponsors as far as exposure is concerned. The bigger deals that teams like Accies end up with tend to come from fans with money to burn (or money laundering outifts ) rather than companies worrying about return on investment.

His last 3 seasons at Hibs he scored 21 goals, 25 goals and 23 goals. So not that much of a waster. However, there is zero chance of him moving to Fir Park, so doesn't really matter.

Ross County have been the form team in the first two rounds so far. A win on Friday would put us in good shape for qualifying ahead of the other Premiership teams. (I took the day off on Friday, in part to watch our game, so we better win).

I'm not saying people wouldn't buy them. Just that if we lost even, say, £10k from a £150k sponsorhip deal by selling without a logo, that is a lot of extra shirts we'd need to sell to make up the difference.

If he comes back north I presume Hibs would be favourites, but wouldn't mind seeing him at Fir Park.

Seedorf is from an EPL side and Cole fom a Championship side, so they must be casting the odd glance in that direction.

My point is that if they don't buy them for the holiday they aren't lost sales. Those people are almost always going to buy them later.

I see the "missing the summer" argument most years, but I'm not sure I buy it. Is there anyone that wants a new top that ends up not buying it in late July or early August? And if any 'Well fan buys their kid a Rangers or Celtic top instead, they should have an immediate Fir Park banning order imposed

I doubt they'd be able to recoup the loss from the inevitable cut in sponsorship revenue (unless we have a particularly benevolent sponsor waiting in the wings).

I bet they wouldn't roost on a grass pitch.

If it is, it's a really really bad one. I'd expect someone looking for sponsors to at least say "sponsorship deal available"

I don't know, but apparently the most recent deal with BetPark was supposedly our most lucrative in the past 10 years.

The last audited accounts show sponsorship and adversting brought in £453,639. Of course, that's not all shirt logos, but it's a fair chunk of change,