Kmcalpin

A good summing up as we said at the time. The game was won early on and we motored through the remainder of the 90 minutes. We did ease up a bit in the second half especially after Pearson was retired. Overall I'm happy with the result and performance.

You're very likely right but it really is a ludicrous situation isn't it. If areas around a football stadium are tricky then the game may be postponed but if they are tricky around a pub, club or swimming pool then they don't have to close. You'd have thought that the first places closed by Police would be pubs/clubs given that some punters would be unsteady on their feet even in dry conditions!

There's something in the argument about our national team declining. However its also true that other countries have improved. In a cut throat competitive environment its simple logic that if one team moves up another must move down. Many smaller countries have improved markedly and are no longer the Aunt Sallies they once were. The game itself has changed in that tactics have developed no end and teams are better organised. Its easy to identify admire the skills of a flamboyant striker but how easy is it to identify and admire the skills of a great defensive midfielder who doesn't need to tackle?

This will be down to the Police. I don't know if Police Scotland is more consistent in its "advice" than the previous regional forces were. In the recent past some forces ie Strathclyde took into account the state of car parks whilst others seemed to ignore them. A few years ago I recall a midweek cup game at Inverness which involved travelling in shocking conditions - freezing fog. The car park at the ground was in horrific condition - we had to wade ankle deep through slush, ice and puddles to gain access to the stadium. The Highland Police weren't concerned in the least. To cap it all we played rubbish and got beaten 2-0.

Many fans go on about a drop in quality but what are you comparing the standard with? If the comparison is limited to our own team, we've had a damn good sides in recent years, last season excepted. I can recall some absolutely dire teams in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. The team under Alex McLeish was so bad I stopped going for several weeks. In more recent times, Maurice Malpas's side wasn't exactly world class. The current team is way superior to some of these dreadful sides. If its Scottish football in general then it depends on which teams you want to include in the comparison. Celtic are probably poorer as is Dundee United. However Hearts, Aberdeen, Ross County, Inverness and St Johnstone are probably at their strongest they've been in recent times. No. I'd say our current team isn't that bad.

Assessing attendance figures on an annual basis is fraught with difficulty. Yes, the cost of football has risen but so have other costs and yes the team played badly last season so no doubt these factors impacted on our attendance figure. Out of interest I checked back figures for 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73. 1970-71 Average attendance 7,797. Rangers 17,500; Celtic 20,000; Aberdeen 10,000; St Johnstone 5,500. 1971-72 Average attendance 6,227. Rangers 20,000; Celtic 19,000; Aberdeen 6,251; Kilmarnock 3,774; Dundee United 2,234 1972-73 Average attendance 5,262. Rangers 22,000; Celtic 12,439; Aberdeen 4,500; Arbroath 2,330; Partick Thistle 3,080 So, yes attendances have dropped since WW2 due to changes in Society, the rise of alternative attractions etc etc. However, very often and in particular last season, much has depended on the opposition. Last season we had no Hearts, Hibs or Sevco. For the past few seasons we have entertained (I love that word) Ross County and Inverness who don't bring hordes of fans. Historically, before the rise of TV, the Old Firm as was, would be good for 35-40k fans a year. In the last few years that's dropped to about 16,000 fans a year. Big factors I would say are live TV, all seater stadia, and the nature of the opposition. There is no doubt that the demise of Rangers hit us hard as the club warned us it would do although the media use of the word Armageddon was OTT. Killie have also suffered badly. I still remain hopeful that long term we can increase our attendances but it'll be hard and will require imaginative thinking. We can learn from the USA but please no OTT razzamataz - that just isn't part of our culture. There are many other external factors too that need to be changed. Throughout our history fans have come and gone and that will never change. Folk attend Fir Park for a variety of reasons and I've learnt very recently, like within the past day or two, that some fans feel threatened or under attack from information overload. Others simply can't get enough and are demanding more and more information. In short analysis of our attendance figures is very complex.

To be meaningful, we should also look at the attendance graphs for other clubs. I'd also like to see attendance figures going back to the 1960s. The loss of Rangers, in purely financial terms, has been a blow in the past 3/4 years. In some years we had 4 home games against the former Old Firm but last season we only entertained Celtic once at Fir Park. So the figures need to be interpreted with caution. Figures this year will be up.

Good post. Yes MMcG did name Eric Dier. Given that there's been no news at all about Liam Grimshaw I suspect you're on the money - negotiations are continuing.

I don't know. Like you I don't think the boss has backed up his comments with his team selections. He did say though that Laing was a big powerful lad with a great future ahead of him as a midfield player. He picked out him, Dom Thomas and Dylan Mackin as the 3 young players most likely to make it. He did compare him to a midfielder with Spurs - his name meant nothing to me as I don't follow English football. Time will tell I guess.

Like today, there was always one or two dissenting voices and the support never agreed 100% between themselves on anything, well almost anything. In general the support would back the Chairman's view and even if the manager was in charge during a bad run of defeats they would not question the Chairman or the manager himself. They were different times and society was much different to what it is today. I can only ever recall my father leaving a game early maybe twice and on both occasions we were winning the games comfortably and for many that just wasn't what they wanted to see. Like today money was tight for many, and our fans wanted to see 2 evenly matched sides battle it out, with us winning of course. Interest in English football was very limited and those who did buy magazines like "Shoot" only did so for novelty value. Football like society in general has evolved and moved on especially since the late 70s and the arrival of Thatcherism. Up until then there was more camaraderie and less "whats in it for me" attitude. Interestingly though our attendances in the late 60s was usually between the 3,500 - 5,000 mark much what it is like today.

He played him in midfield a few weeks back and commented on it in the media after the game. Then, at the Society evening in November he commented that Laing had the potential and attributes to make a very good midfielder.

To a large, but not exclusive, extent its fans themselves who are demanding more information and clubs are simply reacting to this. Clubs are under more scrutiny now than ever before. When I first began going to Fir Park the vast majority of fans simply wouldn't dare to question Bobby Ancell's tactics or team selection. They were what they were. Likewise the running of the club was the sole prerogative of Mr Hepburn and his directors and again no-one would dare question how the club was run. If I'd gone to a game and dared to ask where a transfer fee had gone I'd have been met with icy stares. The world has moved on and new technology has changed football and life in general forever. My father and uncles were diehards but they would not discuss football outwith matchday, with the possible exception of Supporters Club meetings. They respected the Manager and Chairman and had 100% trust in both of them at all times. We'll never see those days again.

Its just a rumour thats all. I have no problem in bringing back ex players as long as they do the business for us. It doesn't matter a jot to me if a player is new to us or a previous one returning - its their on field performance that counts.

The product we have now is no worse than it was in much of the the 60s, 70s and 80s when crowds were much higher. Expectations have however increased markedly.

We are still due money from Jamie Murphy's move to Brighton as its being paid in installments.

What happened to the culprit? Was he given a red or yellow card?

Mark McGhee picks the team Iain and he rates Laing highly as a midfielder, so he must be a serious contender whether we agree or not.

Well said. Usually there is a lady at the corner of the Cooper stand car park, Wendy I think she is known as, who sells tickets. However from time to time she has not been available and so no tickets were sold but on Saturday, for the first time, someone else stood in for her. As far as the Main Stand is concerned, I can't ever recall anybody selling tickets there. In effect this excludes anybody approaching the Stand from Edward Street. In short the club must have lost several thousands of pounds every season by overlooking this. Not a fortune granted but the extra cash would be very useful.

I'm not sure that your assumption is correct. Given that Las was booked it would seem that the referee took the view that it was deliberate handball. Going by the above photo I'd say that Las is about 8-10 feet away from the ball, which doesn't give him a lot of time to react. Were his arms up to protect his face? Interestingly of the 15 outfield players in the photo, excluding Conor Ripley and the striker hitting the ball, about 10 could be deemed to have their arms in an unnatural position. What would have happened if the shot had cannoned off Las's leg and hit a Hamilton player on the arm or another of our defenders on the arm? Our officials need to use more common sense here in their interpretation. Generally speaking a penalty should only be awarded if its a case of hand/arm to ball or a player adopts a stance with his arms spreadeagled quite deliberately to block a shot - which would be clearly unnatural. We will see many more incidents like the above this season where no penalty will be awarded. If more referees take such a strict interpretation then what is to prevent a manager from instructing a player who is on the edge of, or in, a packed penalty area and with little or no prospect of getting off a clear shot on goal, from deliberately aiming at a defender's arm which wasn't by his side?

Or Laing?

Interesting, I wondered if this would come up.

Going by the above guidance the referee clearly decided that it was a case of hand to ball, ie Lasley's premeditated intention was to handle the ball. He does not appear to have taken into account the very short distance between the attacker's boot and Lasley, nor the power with which the ball was struck. As regards the clause "an arm moved from the player’s side, risking being struck by the ball", I would say that its almost impossible to move or jump without moving your arm from your side. The only way for a player to avoid that scenario is to move carefully with your arms at your side or simply avoid trying to block a shot - both clearly absurd. Going back to last Wednesday and Marvin Johnson's cross, and applying the above interpretation then it was a clear penalty and a yellow card. The referee gave neither. The difference in opinion between us on this forum is perhaps understandable but what isn't understandable and very worrying indeed is the difference in interpretation between individual grade 1 referees.

Scunthorpe's TV cash will be way above what we receive - maybe twice or three times. Maybe someone else at the club wants to move Ainsworth on.

Absolutely Allan. Some young players, maybe Faddy, on the bench to bring on once the business has been done. Maybe five from from Samson, Watt, Laing, Thomas, Cadden, Fletcher, Mackin and Faddy.

Just watched TV highlights on BBC. Two observations: * No evidence of a handball by Skippy at his second goal. Camera angle isn't perfect but nothing obvious. * Technically a penalty but a very soft one. Given that the ball hit Las's arm at point blank range there was nothing he could do about it. Probably the same as Stephen McManus's red card penalty against Aberdeen. The conclusion though is now that every ball in the box that hits a defender on the hand or arm, that isn't by his side is a penalty. We had a similar claim last Wednesday when Marvin's attempted cross struck a defender's outstretched arm in the box - no penalty. From now on our players should be instructed to claim vehemently, and in numbers, every time a ball strikes an opponent's arm or hand in the box.