Yoss

Yes, SS, but that's just a function of how well we're playing or much much good possession we can get. If you're in control of the game you can push the wide players forward more, otherwise they have to drop back. That shouldn't be confused with any inherent difference in system.

4-3-3 is more or less the same thing as the 4-5-1 that we've been playing in some away games anyway, it would just mean Baird on the left and Tadé right. All you're really doing is replacing Mole with Wales.

Sweet. Wasn't really expecting anything before January. Weird how it changes your mood innit, there I was a little bit worried about Saturday's game and now I'm looking forward to seeing him back. Hope it gives the rest of the team the same sort of lift.

He has tried to bring in wingers - Borris, Carcary, Dunbar, Smith, Williamson, McBride. It's just that, for whatever reason,s they keep being his least successful signings. That might be coincidence but I suspect there's more to it. McGlynn only wants hard workers and so many of the best wingers are "flair players" who tend not to be quite such hundred percenters (look at Gibson and Cardle along the road).

Yeah. Watching them on youtube in the cold light of day it looks like the second one is the better goal, but it was Peterhead one that really had you on your feet in excitement at the time.

No one is going to give Weir a full-time deal on his current form, so barring some major turnaround in form he's just going to be seeing out the last few months of his contract before his release in the summer. If Mole is going back to Hearts then I'd be quite happy to see Wales signing again, though he's a different sort of player and if McGlynn wants to stick with having a target man up-front then that would have to be Tadé, leaving Wales and Baird probably competing for a single spot. We're more in need of a decent wide player, ideally.

Yeah but in August they used the pic from last season. (I'm assuming they jsut don't get the photos in time.)

We've had our share of luck - particularly with the lack of injuries and suspensions thus far - and we've been good enough to take advantage of it. It's "riding our luck" as opposed to just being lucky. Yes we're there on merit that but it would be churlish to deny that it's involved a few things going in our favour.

We are riding our luck, is anyone denying that? (It's not the same thing as saying we're just lucky.)

Fourteen games so far this season and the back four (five including McGurn) have played every minute of every game so far. Wonder when that last happened?

Thanks, incidentally, to whoever has been posting links to my twohundredpercent articles (the ones on Dundee, I think) on livilions. Nice to know someone is reading them.

I'm still sore at losing to Stirling.

It's more that his explanation fits the known facts - ie that Livi were known to have debts of £1.9 million when they went into admin just a few weeks after the period covered by those accounts. SD's explanation makes sense of why those debts are not showing in them.

Right, I'll have another go. Go on then, tell me when. No they didn't, just how hard is it to get the basic facts right after all this time?

Whatever gripes you have with the Trust, MCL, if you really think you were heading anywhere other than oblivion under Massone then you're off your fucking head.

Yeah okay, it's old ground. There's a big difference between being asked for that amoutn of money and being asked for a bond for the same amount of money, btw. And no other club was asked for it because no other club was in administration. I agree that there's bound to have been some politics involved and attitudes seem to harden in the week between the two meetings concerned, for whatever reason. Nonetheless, whatever the reasons individuals had for voting for it, the rationale for it was not punishment - which is why it's not a precedent for Dundee.

I was avoiding commenting on the Livi stuff over on the Dundee thread, but some issues arising: for those that still don't seem to have got their heads round it: Livi's demotion last summer was not a punishment for being in administration. It's still not clear whether the SFL were going to apply any punishment for it, after the first of the two board meetings at the time, and had Livi been able and allowed to stay in the first division. The demotion was a pragmatic measure (as with Gretna previously) to limit the potential damage of a club going bust during the season. In that sense, Livi were unlucky with the timing. If Massone's regime had collapsed earlier in the summer, it might have allowed the administrator and new owners to get things sorted and get a CVA in place in time for the start of the season, in which case there wouldn't have been a problem. But the CVA is the critical thing - the business of the administrator being able (or not) to guarantee the business will survive is not a matter of him expressing an opinion, until that CVA is in place he's legally not able to speak for those on whom that survival depends (ie the creditors). If a club goes into administration during a season, that's unlucky, but there would be no point in asking a club to provide the same guarantees when it happens mid-season. (What happens if, or rather when, they say no? Are you immediately going to demote them, leave the first division with nine clubs and cause exactly the kind of financial loss for the remaining clubs that that the guarantees were designed to avoid?) What punishment the SFL would impose on Dundee if the worst comes to the worst remains to be seen, but what happened to Livi is only tangentially related and shouldn't be looked to for any kind of guide. (It's also worth looking at the English set-up here, where they have much stricter rules in force. There's a ten point punishment for going into administration - but separate from and over and above that there are even harsher rules for attempting to start a new season without havign a CVA in place that would guarantee them finishing it. In theory, such clubs would not be allowed a licence and wouldn't be able to start the season at all. In practice, they've fudged it a bit and applied much stricter points deductions, eg the 25 point penalty with which Chester started last season.) The other issue mentioned on the other thread was Livi's situation now: You're still running at a significant operatin loss - I think McDougall said £400K last season though I can't find the link offhand. And you could have done more to cut costs last year if you'd wanted or needed to. Someone (Paul Watson?) was signed on a full-time two year deal within days of last summer's demotion, for one example. Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with that if Rankine / McDougall / whoever else are willing to put the money in. It's cool. Same goes for Melville at Dundee and that bloke at Morton, I don't have a problem with it in itself. (So long as it doesn't involve taking on commitments over and beyond what they're willing to cover in the long-term - which may or may not be what's happened at Dundee.) Just don't pretend that you've cut costs back to a minimum and are now running on anything like a sustainable basis. You're still being propped up by sugar daddies or external sources of funding just as you have been throughout the club's history.

Maybe we should agree to scan a few pages each.

I seem to remember Ferry played in every game bar one in his first season, though a lot of them were as sub. Well done to him.

Nearly right, but it's Bresnan rather than Shahzad. Most surprising was that Rashid didn't make the B squad, that's a fairly major snub.

Ashes squad to be announced tomorrow. Not many decisions to make, it'll be the eleven incumbents plus Bell as the extra batsman, Davies as the spare 'keeper, one spinner (from Panesar, Tredwell or Rashid) and two more seamers, probably Bresnan and Shahzad unless they pull something from leftfield. The spinner is the trickiest decision - partly depends on whether they want someone as back-up to Swann in case of injury, or whether they want the option of playign a second spinner, in which case it would be Panesar or Rashid to provide variation. There are a couple of grounds in Aus in which you might consider two spinners - but only really if you've got a five man bowling attack which England currently don't (and I can't see them taking such a big risk in Aus when they haven't been doing so at home to Pakistan or Bangladesh). Also worth noting that the Performance Squad will also be in Australia so if there are any players who might yet need the experience (I'm thinking of Rashid) they can be put therer - doesn't stop them being called upon if need be. So I'll go with: Strauss, Cook, Trott, Pietersen, Collingwood, Morgan, Bell, Prior, Davies, Swann, Broad, Anderson, Finn, Bresnan, Shahzad, Tredwell Any thoughts?

Nonsense. He was the first player since Botham who actually delivered on the hype, on a more than occasional basis. Not for ever and over as long a period as you'd have liked, no, but under Vaughan's captaincy, over a spell of about four years, he averaged over 40 with the bat and well under 30 with the ball - and had an impact on games that was more telling even than those stats. England are doing okay without him, but there's no question they had a better - and better-balanced - team with him there. Now we've no proper all-rounder and are back having to make the age-old decision about whether to field a sixth batsman or a fifth bowler. (And his one day stats are terrific, though as it happens I don't really give a stuff about one day cricket.)

Of course he'll be missed, he's the best player England have had in the past 25 years or so.

Very different players, but I'd leave Tadé where he is, why change it when he's doing so well? Maybe Wales would play wide instead. Dunno. As ever, I trust McGlynn's judgement. I seem to remember when we signed Simmons we didn't really think we needed another midfielder, but he was evidently thinking longer term and signing up a good player while he was available. It's not impossible that Weir, as well as Mole, might not be with us come January.

I rate him highly enough but what on earth would we do with him? That would give us a squad, currently, with more strikers than defenders.