Yoss

Same would have been true last year, but the announcement came on the Wednesday after the Arbroath game. http://www.raithroversfc.com/cgi-bin/latestnews.cgi?id=2949&page=66

Usually very soon after the last game, I'd expect it to be early this week.

That's my thinking too, can't see any (footballing) reasons why we'd let him go or why he'd want to leave. Fingers crossed. I expect him to keep Simmons on too, but given the problems of fitting him into the same side as Walker and Davo there might be an outside chance that he could this this year's surprise release.

Not seen much of Laurie Ellis's name in all this talk of contracts either - any news?

Smith is too old to be allowed on season-long loan.

Agree with all of that, Sloan has done very well for us so it's with a little sadness I'd let him go, but it's hard to see him fitting in anywhere next season. (Is that three years he's been here now? And I never have worked out what his best position is.)

Of course we'll keep Davidson, he's an important player for us.

I did mention this, yeah. I didn't mention Tadé because he's under contract, but some of the others could be sought after - Walker and McGurn and maybe Hill would be my main worries.

Steady on everyone. Of course you're always looking to make progress and of course McGlynn will be doing so. But that doesn't mean punting a raft of players because we think we can expect or demand better ones. Get a grip. The cup run will help a bit but we're still going to be among the lower wage payers in this league, we'll have to make do accordingly.

Russell has improved visibly during the season (well, I think so anyway) and I'd have him in a flash, but I'm imaging United will at least want to take another look at him themselves first. Mole is a better player than we were initially warned we were getting, and it's looking unlikely that he's going to get anywhere with Hearts, so I wouldn't be entirely averse. He's not a goalscorer though. McGlynn tried to sign Trouten a couple of years back and I thought we might go for him again last summer but heard no mention that we'd tried. So I don't know if McGlynn would still be interested or not. Looked a cracking little player in his Queens Park days but I can't say I've been aware of him looking that great in this division.

He'll surely get a fair bit more money by seeing out the last year of his contract up there though, unless United are so keen to get rid that they'd pay him off. Or unless he's very selfless. We'd only be able to loan him for a limited period, again.

Ah. Not McAllister then. I never rated McManus. It should be admitted in saying that that I was out of the country for most of the 2005/06 season when he had his best year for us, but nonetheless it's footballing grounds only that make me not interested in having him back, nothing to do with the way he left before. (With which I didn't have a problem.)

Agree with most of what has been said in the last two or three posts. Don't think we need wholesale changes to the core of the squad. All those here on loan or temporary contracts will presumably be leaving - Russell, Armstrong, Mole, Gatheussi, Shields, Amaya; possibly O'Connor and probably Sloan. I'd keep Ferry, if possible. (And Davidson, which I would think goes without saying.) Already contracted, I believe, are Wilson, Murray,Smith, Williamson, Tadé, Weir. (There was a rumour about Weir leaving, and I daresay we'd let him if he's got something else fixed up, but he's under contract so I'll leave him in for now.) We can't assume all those out of contract will stay even if we want them to - I'm a bit concerned that McGurn and Walker, in particular, might get better offers elsewhere. There was a rumour that Hill is going full-time with us, which I hope is true, of all the part-time players he's the one you'd think is most at the stage of his career to benefit. With a bit of luck that'll give us McGurn, Wilson, Ellis, Campbell, Murray, Hill, Simmons, Walker, Davidson, Smith, Ferry, Williamson, Tadé, Weir. I'm pretty happy with the defence and midfield there. McGlynn has shown he's not afraid to start with a small squad and add to it as circumstances unfold so if all we added to that over the summer was two forwards that'd be fine by me. If Baird is one I'm quite happy, took that second goal against us very well the other week. I'm rubbish at noticing opposition players too but Dyer is another one I've noticed in the past - looked pretty solid, very much a defender rather than an attacking full-back like Wilson. But if we're signing him and especially if we're signing these boys from Partick too, that suggests to me that at least one of the defenders I've listed as staying on probably isn't doing, which worries me a bit. Is Campbell under serious long-term doubt? Tactically, I also agree with the above, the attempt to convert Tadé into a full-time centre-forward didn't work and hopefully he can be left on the wing. Conversely, Walker is wasted on the wing and similarly Williamson has had his best games in a more or less free role in midfield. Which is another reason why it's difficult to fit all of Walker, Simmons and Davidson into the same team, but I'm hoping we can keep them all anyway. So all of that leaves us needing one more forward. The names I want to mention are Kevin Smith and Pat Clarke but we won't get either. Don't know who else there is. Rory McAllister, maybe?

I can't agree with "clearly inferior" in either case, though I can see how someone might think it of the South African series. Bangladesh series: I din't actually see more than a couple of half-days of it, was mostly reliant on TMS. But from what I saw and as far as I could tell we did as well as could be hoped on those pitches. Carberry didn't look comfortable and I suspect he'll be a one-test wonder, maybe Tredwell too if onyl because it's hard to see us needing him, but Finn might have the makings of a Test player, did well to get some movement with the old ball (and a Kookaburra at that). Still far from sure about Trott, I'm hoping we can find someone better, but it looks like Bell has finally found his niche lower down the order. Swann is a marvel, rarely looks to be getting that much turn and I keep expecting his run of form to end but he keeps coming up with the goods, and this knack of taking a wicket in the opening over of a spell is almost supernatural. But the big plus was Bresnan. Wouldn't read too much into his 91 in those conditions - though it's nice to know he can hold a bat - but his bowling in unhelpful conditions was surprisingly good. Be nice if he could find a bit more pace, you can't help thinking the Aussies would lap it up, but I should think he's won himself a berth in the team for the start of the summer even with Anderson and Onions to come back in. It might well allow us to rest Broad for the return series against Bangladesh which I gather was the plan, circumstances permitting.

I had a skim through the pre-season part of the thread. At least I don't seem to have said anything too embarrassing - apart from predicting that Lee Bryce would have a big part to play in our season. Mind you, in a season like this you never can tell - he might score the winner in the Cup final yet. Anyway, I dropped another email to the club this morning and got a reply this time from Bob Mullen - apparently he resolved the Murray situation with the SFA in conversation on the 25th; so before Robbo phoned them though after the original discussion on here and my initial unacknowledged email. He didn't say anything about that mail or whether he'd even seen it but the clear implication was that it was nothing to do with me and he had it all in hand (notwithstanding someone else's error in what was written on the club's own website). Which is fair enough - like I said before, we're not the Pars and it's nice to know we've got staff who know their jobs. So you can take your green dots back if you like ..... Time to look forward instead then. Not to the semi-final but the league - I still remember the Pars fans walking down Pratt Street singing "You're gonna win f**k all" on the day they humped us 5-2 a few days after our cup win over Airdrie in '94. I don't particularly want it to happen again, and we certainly aren't comfortable enough to be able to afford a really bad run in the league over the next few weeks.

Thanks so much for all the comments, folks, and these ones from the other thread that made me feel all wrm inside this morning (as if I didn't anyway). Never did get a reply directly from the club so I'm still not entirely sure it was my mails and / or Robbo's phone call that prompted or helped to prompt it being sorted. Maybe I'll contact them again, if it was in part down to us I might ask if they can give me Murray's shirt from yesterday, or something - would that seem cheeky? Though obviously the win is more than reward enough anyway.

Pattinson was raised in Australia, but because he was born in the UK he didn't even have to serve a residence period (as KP and Kieswetter both did) when he moved back here. But by every account he considered himself fiercely Aussie for most of his life and declaring himself English was a professional decision. Vaughan wasn't happy with his selection, no. But that was because he was shit, I haven't heard any suggestion it was because of his nationality - maybe that played a part too, in fairness to Vaughan. Both Pietersen and Kieswetter have one British parent (Scottish, in the latter case) and that means I don't have a problem with them being perfectly entitled to declare or consider themselves British (/ English - it comes to the same thing in this context). If they actually do consider themselves as such then fine, but it's difficult to see how you can distinguish between that and someone making the choice for reasons of professional convenience. The horse has long since bolted anyway, not just with Lamb, Smith and Hick, but the likes of the Hollioakes, who are (or, sadly, were) Australian. (I believe Adam has moved back there now his cricket career is over.) I'm just accusing Vaughan of hypocrisy over his defence of Pietersen, really. If he thinks Pietersen thought of himself as anything other than South African during his childhood then he's quite wrong, and the fact that he wasn't picked for the SA under 19 side while Kieswetter was is entirely incidental.

Meanwhile Michael Vaughan has been shooting his mouth off about all these furriners in the England team. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/england/7374216/Michael-Vaughan-calls-for-all-English-England.html "Someone like Kevin Pietersen made the decision very early to come over to England and he learnt a lot of his cricket here," added Vaughan. "I do have a problem when the likes of Jonathan Trott (play for England), and (Craig) Kieswetter, who's played for the South African Under-19s. I think in Trott's case he even played for the South Africa A team. "Now that is where I have a problem, that we have almost got a 'ship-in' system of looking at talent, and a lot of them come over for the money." Let's check that one shall we Michael? KP moved over to England at the age of 20 when offered a contract to play cricket; Kieswetter moved over at 17 to complete his schooling. He might have a better case with Trott, but a better case again would be Darren Pattinson, who by all accounts considered himself proudly Aussie until moving here and being picked for England in his late 20s. Oh, what's that, Pietersen and Pattinson were both picked under Vaughan's own captaincy but Kieswetter and Trott came later? Well there's a coincidence.

Strange series that India / South Africa one, each team dishing out one thrashing. Shame the two highest-ranked Test sides in the world couldn't have played a longer series. England have problems with injuries to several quick bowlers in advance of the Bangladesh Tests, which might mean an unfamiliar-looking side. Potentially all four of the quicks who played in SA could be missing. Plunkett finally got a game in the third one-dayer yesterday and then was only bowled for two overs which is hardly a sign of confidence.

Thanks again Robbo. If the club gave the SFA another prod yesterday morning then I suspect the timing of the email I received was not coincidental. And if it put a smile on McGlynn's face then it's been worth it already.

Okay, who's the wiki vandal? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Davidson

Oh ... oh ... wait. Sorted. I might not have heard from Raith but I have just had a reply from the SFA. Get in. Yoss 1 SFA 0. Okay, I'm sure it would have worked itself out anyway but I'm going to pretend it was all thanks to me so I can bask in my share of the glory when we win the cup.

Magic, thank you very much Robbo.

What Raith fans on here have any sort of connection with the club? I'm going to keep being an arse about this Grant Murray thing that's been discussed on the Dundee v Raith thread over on the cup forum. For those that haven't seen it, my original post here: http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/123984-dundee-v-raith-rovers/page__view__findpost__p__4250468 and SD's this morning confirming that this error (if indeed it is) has happened before: http://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php/topic/123984-dundee-v-raith-rovers/page__view__findpost__p__4283610 (Thanks again to SD to checking it over for me.) I daresay the club know what they're doing with suspensions and stuff - we're not the Pars after all - but I'm just slightly concerned that the club website (in its match report on the Aberdeen game) also said that Murray would be suspended for the Dundee game, and that they haven't replied to my mail about it. Does anyone have any appropriate contacts within the club to whom they can make a discreet enquiry and set my mind at rest that they have had this checked and are aware of the situation? Thanks. I'd hate us to do the opposite thing and end up not fielding a player because we thought he was suspended when he wasn't.

I'd have to side with the Livi lads here, this is a non-issue for me, even if it might be one for people in West Lothian. Firstly, a reminder that the £280K was money they were not going to get anyway, that horse had bolted. You might blame them for not acting sooner but the binary presented between subsidisung the club / saving jobs elsewhere is an entirely false one. As of last summer they weren't getting any of that money anyway, and by being accommodating about it they have at least kept an employer going in the town, which not only provides jobs but brings revenue and some level of publicity to the town. As to whether continued subsidisation is value for money, that's an issue for them, who knows what the overall effects are? If the voting population of West Lothian don't think it's an effective use of their resources they can hold the council responsible in the usual fashions; but it doesn't follow automatically that because cuts are having to be made elsewhere then this must be a misuse of resources - that's up to them to decide and isn't a stick with which to beat the club. (Again, it's probably not the case that they're actually giving any money away or left financially worse off by subsidising the football club's rent, unless there's some sort of opportunity cost by which they could otherwise be obtaining greater value from somebody else renting out the stadium, which is unlikely at least in the short term. You'd probably have to bulldoze the stadium and sell off the land, and the times are hardly propitious for profitable land sales.)