weeyin

I'm pretty sure Sutton was the planned replacement for Porter.

Obviously didn't see the game today, so I'd be interested in the thoughts of those that were there. I have read a few comments about lack of cutting edge, final pass etc. What's the feeling on that? Is it a case of of over-elaboration in the midfield or poor execution? Or are the strikers not getting into space often enough?

They are certainly entitled to a reasonable number of attempts. As this is an SFA competition, however, it is up to the SFA to define exactly how any attempts is reasonable I don't think anybody thought the postponement situations at Fir Park were anything but unacceptable. So I don't see any double standards here.

Never thought about that. That would be a decent shout.

Pure speculation here, but I would guess something like a better sell-on clause or, more likely, quicker payments from Derby.

That barely covers Boab's pie allowance.

I'm guessing you must work for the Inverurie Tourist Board.

Aye, but every time 'Flow comes on here and says a deal is "not 100% complete" it means it will be soon

From the Scotsman: We've got contingency plans," McGhee said. "I can pick up the phone at any time and say to someone, 'Right, Chris Porter has gone, can we have your player on loan?' "We have two or three like that who we have spoken to already, who have said that, if Chris goes, then phone us."

That's what is agent is telling him, but I'm not so sure. Rosco's best offer ended up being Cardiff, and I think Porter would be smart to make that move too. Quote happy for him to stay though, as long as he doesn't sign a pre-contract with anyone.

To be fair to Sutton, the whole team was poor for a while there. Hopefully, now we are creating more opportunities, he can pick up where he left off at the start of the season.

Spot on. He was up front about his intentions to further his career with us, but has done it by keeping his head down, working hard and, most importantly, doing a great job.

Well, the article says the fee will be re-invested. If that's true, then it could be a nice piece of business. Be sorry to see him go, but not surprised - it was always part of the plan and beneficial to both parties.

If it's for the 425k quoted, then we should be paying for his flight

Signing players is a bit of a lottery. It doesn't matter if you are Big Eck or Sir Alex. There are all sorts of reasons what seems like a good player fails to perform in your team. And, even worse, goes on to shine when you sell him on. Because the bigger teams have more cash, people tend to forget their clangers. Look how many dodgy goalies Man U played before they finally managed to get a replacement for Schmeichel (not to mention Veron). My favourite example is Titus Bramble. When I used to watch him with Ipswich he looked a pretty useful defender. As soon as he left Portman Road, he turned into a donkey.

Or maybe we spent the cash already on the repair and maintenance of the ground, more wages to Fat Boab, Hughes and Porter etc.

Wasn't there a game (back in the 80s, I think) involving Falkirk that didn't get played until about the 23rd attempt? I seem to remember it got to the stage where they just kept rescheduling it for the next day until it finally went ahead. I also seem to remember that even then, it was so cold, a player or two had to be treated for mild hypothermia.

Looking at the SFA's quotes in the other thread, they don't seem too bothered even if we end up a round behind everyone else.

Seconded.

Or maybe, the journos don't really care as much about it as our supporters do. They need to squeeze their match report into limited space (and likewise with the highlights) and felt it wasn't as big a factor as the chances we squandered.

I don't think you actuallly read what I wrote (or the post I was responding to). However, bottom line is that I'm glad Spencer lost, and I don't care who gets the money.

I can't imagine Boyle would have bought the debt just so any monies recovered would go to the creditors. More likely, I would think, that the fee Boyle paid to buy the debt went to the creditors to allow Boyle to purse the debt at his own risk (and expense).

I know what you mean, but I actually liked that Adidas strip.

No, the article says "owner John Boyle was forced to give evidence against his club after being called as a witness for Spencer." The defendant can call anybody they think will be a useful witness, even the person that is prosecuting them.

A wee bit of an early start for you, though. 4:30am