Kmcalpin

At their first goal he was badly positioned giving the attacker far too much room and time on the wing. He then back pedalled almost into his 6 yard box (how much further could he retreat?). That said the midfield retreated far too easily as well at the actual shot. Overall, I'd say he was 60-70% culpable. Not to blame for their second. We've lost this type of goal far too often in the past few seasons.

Really? If so, then where do players, who perhaps aren't "top notch", go for money? Firhill, Rugby Park, Inverness, McDiarmid Park?

Absolutely. No reason to be pessimistic but we shouldn't overdo the optimism. Irrespective of how bad Killie might or might not be, we are short in the middle and up front.

The TV money for the game will be £15k. We should make a minimum of £80K from the game I'd think, hopefully more.

Come on folks cut out the trolling and personal abuse. The site doesn't need it.

I don't agree with most of what you've written but you have a valid point here. I've seen Tait twice this season; against Cowdenbeath and against Rangers. At Central Park I thought he played reasonably well but had no cover in midfield. Against Rangers I'd say he had a reasonable game but with definite weaknesses. As I wrote elsewhere we were taken apart down both wings but in fairness he again had no cover in front of him. As you say Rangers were astute enough to cotton on to our achilles heels. I wasn't at Annan but from TV highlights it was a poor goal although he was left badly exposed. All that said, others have reported that he's shown up well in early games. I'm no Stevie Hammell fan but in fairness to him and Tait we play very narrowly with little or no protection afforded to them from midfield. That leaves both backs badly exposed, which in turn places central defence under more and totally unnecessary pressure. Its very early doors and I'll wait a month or two before I draw conclusions on the new lads. That said, I think he will be an improvement on Josh Law.

Depending on prices, I reckon we'll make somewhere between £75k and £150k based on crowds of 17,000 - 35,000. You would then have the £30k sponsors money of top of that; maybe even TV money. We are where we are. We've been drawn to play Celtic at Parkhead and need to enter the fray with a positive attitude.

I haven't seen a great deal of either player, but from the little I've gleaned they both seem to be defensive players and not the attacking player we need. Is that a fair summing up?

That sums it up perfectly. If the game can attract say 19,000 at an average of £12 a head that should net us somewhere in the region of £80,000. More money to pay back Les early; a boost to the playing budget or a bit of both. That will compensate for the lack of another home league game against one the gruesome twosome.

Sorry, not the best use of an example. We were playing like this season too but the most recent example was in the Rangers game. Our full backs do suffer from lack of cover in front of them and as we play narrowly, then opponents have the time and space to run at them or if they prefer whip over crosses.

I hope so, but in the recent game at Fir Park our defence and midfield was awful. Although we could have scored 9 they could have scored 12. Now that would have been some scoreline!

Couldn't agree more. Its concerning that that we can play 5 men in the midfield and still get caught out down the wings. The recent Rangers game comes to mind.

I assume that our options are somewhat limited at the moment with both Moult and Blyth out injured and a vacancy for an attacking midfielder. For these reasons the League Cup may not prove the best indication of our future tactics.

Credit to the manager and players for winning comfortably today and qualifying for the next round. Good to see Chris Cadden come onto a game. Does anyone know how Clay fared?

True, a win on penalties wouldn't suit them either. Its vital though that MacDonald receives decent support from midfield and that the wide men link up effectively with him. When he plays on his own up front thats rarely been the case.

Not sure that that they do have a wee bit of money, if the word on the street is to be believed. As an aside, Paul Hartley's comments on Hemmings puts some of Mark McGhee's comments into perspective. In any event I doubt if striker is a priority for us at the moment. Given our current injury list, there's perhaps a chance for Dylan Mackin to showcase his talents, if only from the bench.

Dundee have been watching him for months now but I reckon he's holding off to see whether he can get a move down south.

A lot will depend on Stranraer's attitude. Its their home game and so that might give a wee bit more incentive to attack which will suit us, as we are more of a counterattacking team. If they sit in, on the other hand, we could struggle as may have only one out and out striker on the park.

There was, but the problem is that Les Hutchison wants to change that repayment plan so that his investment is paid back early (we've discussed this very issue elsewhere). If the Society wants to take ownership of the club early then it has to come to some kind of agreement with him. I suspect that the only way the Society could meet condensed timescales would be if Les were to be given or promised a cut of transfer income.

You'd imagine too that clubs who were seriously interested would speak to the player first, through his agent of course, to find out if he would be equally interested; and to determine any relevant release clauses in his contract.

Absolutely. I imagine that future transfer fees are actively being discussed as a way of paying off Les and this is why the fan takeover has been delayed with negotiations ongoing. A large chunk of any transfer fees will be taken by Les, hopefully leaving the club with a little to recycle in the process. If Les were to hoover all this income up, it would affect the short term viability of the club.

Agreed, Greg, the classic domino effect. Who then replaces Ainsworth - Dom Thomas? A few members, me included, feel that he might benefit from a loan period away from the club.

Pretty much my take on things Iain. The key things from our point of view is that when he does depart its not at the very end of the window and we have an adequate replacement lined up.

And back to player recruitment...

Any idea why Stevie Hammell was substituted last night? Was it simply tactical to give Joe Chalmers some game time?