weeyin

I agree with Milo it was best for both parties for Thomas to move on. It seems that Robinson wanted him to stay, but didn't think he was ready for the first team. Thomas disagreed and moved away to get first team action (which he is getting). So we go with second best option of a tasty sell-on clause. I certainly have no axe to grind with him. Seems like he has the talent, but not quite the right attitude to succeed. Plenty of players have gone through the same thing - some turn it around, some end up driving cabs. Much more interested in the guys who want to play for us.

It's not outwith the realms of possibility that Thomas and Tait are mates and he was just having a laugh. Guys that played with each other sometimes do that. I'll give Thomas the benefit of the doubt over The Sun every day of the week.

Erwin should have stayed for us, not himself, after all the support we gave him over his very long term injuries. When he eventually got fit, he played a few months then waved goodbye. A wee bit of loyalty after all we showed him would have been appreciated. Not that I'd jeer him for it, just didn't sit well with me.

I remember that kind of structure being rumoured under McLean. I also remember Jimmy Sanderson going mental on Radio Clyde when he heard that a McLean team was on a bigger bonus for beating Killie (a relegation rival at the time) than they were for beating the OF.

I know. It's almost like being a professional footballer is like having a job where people ask for references.

I don't know what our bonus scheme was at that time, but we have had spells where the basic wage was relatively low, but with incentives for appearances, goals, wins etc. However, when Skippy moved to us initially, his career was on the slide and was looking to get back on track. So I imagine he was just happy to get a game at that point.

So you're not going to post anything else on here until the end of the season?

Not that I'm too worried about the revamped benefits package, but after the initial announcement I never heard about it again. I was certainly never contacted. I think the general drive to raise funds for the "double your money" offer has actually been pretty good. I think now the new season is up and running and we can see the direction the club is moving, even more people may be encouraged to donate or bump up their pledge.

The other way to look at it is 1.56 million is all it took to save our club. When you look at the money thrown around in football, it's peanuts - but could have put us under. Slightly more than half a Marv.

We definitely sold Anier at the right time. Didn't hate him, but was never convinced. Decent, but not great.

It's never surprising if an oppostion striker scores a goal, regardless of their prior employers. As long as we keep up the tempo and commitment we showed in the last game I think we should have enough to win by a goal or two. I don't see how it will undo the good work from the Hearts game if we lose though - unless they take the 3pts back off us.

They'll still hit them hard, though, because that's the way they play the game.

Agreed. I can see Erwin picking up a card (or two) in retaliation as well if Cedric, or our new stopper, welcome him back to Fir Park.

Of course, the mistake they make in that calculation is that they don't regard season ticket holders as paying customers. As an example, if I pay 400 quid for a season ticket for 18 home games, and then have 2 home Cup Games added as a bonus, the club is getting 20 pounds per game from me (instead of the 22.22 per game they'd get without the Cup games). They make it sound like season ticket holders contribute nothing to the split that is being paid to the opponents. So the loss isn't quite as bad as the article makes it seem. It's more of a budgeting issue when it comes to accounting for the season ticket income.

There would be immense skill in that if: a) Anybody wants to spend money in January when they don't need to b) Moult doesn't just sign a pre-contract with a team he really wants to play for and plays out the season with us It's b) that is the most likely scenario. I'm sure there are many clubs would love to know how to do generate a bidding war in January, but historically that just doesn't happen.

I think it's all being inferred, but given our stance on transfers these days and the fact that our demands were met, it makes sense that add ons were involved.

Apart from offering an improved deal, there's little for a club to do in January. If a player is on their last year, they hold all the cards.

I liked the statement from the Chairman. I cringed at "The future is bright, the future is Claret and Amber" for a variety of reasons.

That wasn't even really what I was implying, but arguing about hypotheticals is what makes this place great.

During the summer 'Flow said they were looking for "creative ways" to fix the scoreboard. I'm guessing that was some sort of sponsorship arrangement. I don't know how expensive it would be to replace (I doubt it's worth fixing), but I can see why it's down the list of priorities.

Credit to the new owners. They are doing an excellent job.

It certainly was. Moved on the dead wood and a number of the top earners. Drastically reduced the average age of the squad, recruited some power and pace, and pulled in some cash to balance to books and service the debt. Just need to keep winning now.

The good thing about having a few guys like Grimshaw signing on 1yr deals is that manager can tell guys like Campbell "We want you to be taking that slot when Grimshaw moves on".

If we could bring in a guy like Heneghan and move him on for 3 or 400k after a season, we'd be minted (by our standards).

I think you need international clearance for any player that's playing in England, Wales or Ireland (or further afield, obviously).