Kmcalpin

Yes, it was mentioned and you're right. The club does not have to let him go unless a very large offer comes in. Given the importance of us staying in the top flight for the next 2 seasons and the increased revenue that will bring, the Directors would need to balance the benefits of a transfer fee against the potential loss of income his departure could cause if we were to finish in 11th or 12th place.

Well you'd expect that the clubs potentially involved in the top 8 category (and there could be more than 8 if you count joint academies) will vote for it. Then there are the smaller clubs who wouldn't be involved anyway - the big boys might offer them some kind of sweetener. So, in short, its very hard to tell how the numbers would stack up. I'm sure I read somewhere that there 6 clubs, including ours, who were dead set against the proposal. Time will tell.

I took from last night's discussions that the idea has been diluted somewhat or some cold water poured on it. The 8 initial elite academies would do all they can to retain their status and try to ensure that those in the next tier couldn't progress. Reading between the lines Rangers, Celtic and Hamilton would be 3 of those top tier academies. Add in say Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen and that doesn't leave much scope for others. I believe that Dundee United, Kilmarnock (who seem to be expanding into Lanarkshire) and a few other clubs are not at all happy. If this change goes through the effect on our club could be very serious indeed.

A good and comprehensive resume Andy so thanks for that. In the short term at least, the club is on a sound financial footing and the transfer strategy is still to speculate to accumulate providing the cash is available. We won't need to sell a player for 3 years. Some money has already been paid back to Les Hutchison and John Boyle. The issue with the proposed governance change is that shareholders were not consulted beforehand and as a few are not Society members they did not know anything about it. I don't think there is any disagreement about the merits of the change though. There was also a brief discussion, as you said, on youth academies. We have a particularly good batch of Under 15s at the moment and a large number of clubs have and are sniffing around them. I was a bit taken aback and shocked at just how competitive the individual academies are; going as they do a bit beyond what I'd call healthy competition.

Hopefully we'll see a good attendance at tonight's Q & A session.

How long before the Rancid runs a headline like "Gers set to bale out penniless Well by offering a mammoth £300k (including add ons) for starlet Cadden" ?

You're absolutely right - amateur level only. A good post and your assessment does seem very credible and I don't doubt its reasonably accurate. I don't think it explains everything but thats asking a lot. Yes, we did lose the midfield battle and that was critical. However I still think we defended too deeply and I think that our midfield and defenders should have been fit enough and competitive enough to defend a few yards further upfield. We really are like a tortoise withdrawing into its shell when under pressure. I don't doubt also that tactics played a part. In terms of this thread there have been some very good and thought provoking posts in the last few hours. It proves that this site can have some well reasoned and respectful debate.

Agreed. Ainsworth is a bit of a scapegoat here - you could see what he was trying to do. We give opposing teams far too much space at the edge of our box week in week out - . probably our biggest single weakness as a team.

I agree that we don't want to overdo the negativity but there were still some very worrying aspects to our performance. If we want to improve they have to be examined (by the management) however painful that might be. Yes, Celtic changed their formation and upped their game in the second half and I get that. But what I don't get is why Celtic would inevitably have more in their tank than us in the second half. In the first half, despite us playing well Celtic had far more possession than us and did far more attacking. They did far more running as a team. So, I just don't get it. The only plausible explanation I can think of is that folk accept Celtic are a far fitter team than us and/or their players are younger. Given that, can we assume that we have work to do on the fitness front and/or some players are simply too old. If we had deployed the same tactics in the second half but simply lost to a better side than I could accept that. If we cast our minds back to the Partick game, which we won of course, the game was in some ways similar. We had a good first half but then totally disappeared in the second just like yesterday. No, there's more to it than just accepting that Celtic would have more in the tank. They are, by far, the most expensive and best team in the league and its no disgrace to have lost to them but the manner in which we did so was concerning. To go 2 goals up and then simply disappear gives cause for concern. I don't think its unreasonable to expect a team to compete, although not necessarily be better than the opposition, for 90 minutes.

Don't know about being biased but he had a poor game. Booked Louis Moult when he didn't commit a foul and then Scott Brown off scot free after he committed a horrible tackle on Keith Lasley. Then he ignored a perfectly good penalty shout when Toure manhandled and wrestled Louis Moult in the box. Also numerous other inconsistencies.

I go along with that. I seem to recall someone on here saying that Stevie Hammell, when offered vastly reduced terms was being touted to lower Premiership clubs but none took the bait. However its midfield where mistakes were made and it really has been a shambles this year. In fairness, McHugh's absence could not have been foreseen. It didn't take a brain surgeon to work out that Keith Lasley, at 37, would struggle and that the loss of Pearo and possibly Marvin Johnson would tear our midfield apart. Instead we witnessed a piecemeal ad hoc approach to rebuilding this critical area of the team.

I would expect McHugh, when fit, to take over from Lasley and I hope MacMillan or Chalmers will be preferred to Hammell, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Agree with all of that. Celtic targetted Hammell from the off and took full advantage of his weaknesses. His positioning throughout the game was very poor and what on earth was doing at Celtic's 2nd? Still, he did create our 3rd goal. In fairness he alone didn't cause our downfall. We played well in the first half and deserved our 2-0 lead. Moult, McManus and Cadden showed up very well with the former taking his goals very well. Pity Cadden didn't receive the support he deserved when making surging runs. Celtic were clearly vulnerable when under attack. It was a blow when Cadden retired injured early in the second half and that clearly affected us. In the second half we simply disappeared and defended deeper and deeper and it was surprising that Celtic took so long to overtake us. Ainsworth's goal apart we did nothing of note and our defending was abysmal with Celtic finding gaps in our defence without even having to try. I thought though that McManus and Heneghan (error apart) stood up to Celtic well although Lasley, Clay, Tait and Hammell, were poor. Again we lacked fight, leadership and aggression in the middle. Luck didn't go our way when Kevin Clancy failed to punish Toure for a bit of wrestling in the box. Mistakes were also made off the field. I didn't understand why MacLean was hooked for MacMillan. An attacking player off and a defensive on at 3-3??? By all means bring MacMillan on ...for Hammell or Thomas on for ...MacLean though. Before kick off I'd have settled for a 4-3 defeat but given we took a first half lead of 2-0 it was very disappointing to capitulate with a barely a whimper. It really is a concern that we can't seem to play for more than 45 minutes.

Belic and Laing out is a good shout. Pearson coming back is a realistic shout but I think Lucas will be on his way. In terms of what I would like to happen, which is a bit different, I'd like to see a wide left player also coming in, but thats down to budgets - the vacancy there is causing us problems. Lucas may be the best player in the world but if he's never fit he's no use to us. IF Pearo doesn't return we'll need another all round or creative midfielder. I'd also like to see youngsters like Alan Campbell, Dom Thomas and perhaps Dylan Mackin go out on loan. Not sure about Luke Watt's current status.

Thats often said but it is really true? The young lads will take their lead from the likes of Mark McGhee, Keith Lasley, Stephen McManus and Stevie Hammell. I suspect they'll soak up a cautious safety first message. We need them to adopt a "have a go" attitude and if faced with a 50/50 decision to get wired in or back off get stuck in. All too often we've seen the likes of Chris Cadden charge up the park out of defence in these kind of games only to find nobody was prepared or able to back him up.

I agree but we simply don't have the midfield players to do that.

Point taken, but is he a better defensive player than Lasley? I agree about Hammell but doubt that Chalmers will be match fit.

Yes, but we also have to work far harder, when we aren't in possession, to close opponents down and deny them free crosses and shots or headers at goal.

I didn't make the game today but had to make do with listening to the radio which I detest, but can't resist. Commentators made a string of telling comments about us.....couldn't compete with Hearts....standing off Hearts.....losing all personal battles.....not working as hard as Hearts when not in possession.......creating nothing. So, we aren't talking yet about being outplayed by brilliant footballers but rather we just can't get the basics right. A lot, though not all, of this is down to an uncompetitive, slow and lacklustre central midfield. The starting line up was the same as last Saturday's and that only succeeded for 45 minutes then. Its a cautious, safety first line up with little in the way of creativity, certainly not right for today. That said the players themselves must shoulder some responsibility for a lacklustre performance. As Mark McGhee has said himself, if they aren't doing it then you train them to do things the right way and then if they still can't do it you punt them. Until other more experienced players are brought in then perhaps we ought to show more faith in young players ie persevering with Jack MacMillan at left back with Hammell or Chalmers as deputy. We definitely suffer from a lack of competitiveness and leadership in the engine room and once again it seems it was our downfall.

Any idea why Cadden was subbed?

I see that the Club's AGM will be held at 1900 hrs on 6 December with the Society's AGM being held an hour later on the same day.

Height by itself is not the be all and end all, although it is essential across a team. However if the player isn't tall he needs to be physically strong. Jimmy Johnstone comes to mind - he was only 5-4 but he was as strong as an ox and could could fend off challenges from much bigger players. Danny Swanson? You're right Captain he's not athletic at all but a narky, abrasive, physical player who will bite scratch and claw to win the ball or hold onto it. There's no way he'd have made teams managed by Tom Wright or Craig Levein otherwise. Character is also important and players like Billy Bremner or more recently Willo Flood are not the kind of guys you'd want to meet up an alleyway after dark. Why hasn't Dom really broken into the first team? Mark McGhee and Faddy are probably best placed to answer that as they'll see him 5 or 6 days a week, as Gadgey said.

I've said exactly this about players in general for a long time and been frequently castigated for it, but you're 100% correct. Its also the reason Hearts released Craig Moore.

Yes, good news indeed. I would like to see an October update though. Based on those figures the Society would have an annual income from pledges of around £130K.