Yoss

Bell goes cheaply. 189/5

Yeah, they wanted to have hot spot, but as said there are only four such cameras and they're in Aus and NZ at the momemtn. The ICC and the boadcasters have yet to really agree who's going to fund all this stuff. The referral system has worked pretty well today nonetheless. Now Onions has a thigh strain apparently, Anderson is having to bowl longer spells than you'd like, Swann did okay but had to go defencsive early on when Kallis took it to him knowing he couldn't afford to get hit out the attack. And now Trott is bowling his tame little medium pacers as England fill in time to the new ball. Of course Strauss and Flower know far more about any of this than me, but it's so painfully obvious that we're a bowler short, and it's not something that was difficult to foresee. It's a really disappointing selection.

Looks like a seamer's pitch today, apparently, to go in with only three seamers (and one of them not fully fit) would be a hopelessly supine way to start the series. We'd deserve to lose. But they won't want to leave Swann out. So Wright has to play rather than Bell; dunno whether he's going to make a proper Test all-rounder, but he's done well enough to deserve his chance and it suits the balance of the side better.

And this is excellent news, both for the series itself and the future of cricket - India propose cutting back on one-dayers to give South Africa a couple of Tests. http://www.cricinfo.com/southafrica/conten...ory/438958.html

Two bat carriers in a week, Farhat for Pakistan this time but they were bowled out for 200 and not all that much by NZ. There's some good cricket going on at the moment, and I'm really looking forward to the England series. Be interesting to see what the team is, are we going to leave Prior at six and go with five bowlers? Seems very risky in such a tough series but I'd love to see them do it. Trott seems to be the man in form and will presumably play at three; Pietersen has had a terrible year but I reckon he's got a couple of big scores coming up. South Africa for their part have an awesome batting line-up; the bowling is a bit more dependent on one or two individuals and I'm not sure they've got such good back-up if Steyn, in particular, doesn't fire. But if he does we're really up against it these next few weeks.

It means there are six specialist defenders in the squad, which is about the minimum you'd normally want anyway. But yeah, we've suddenly got a lot more options than we had just the other week.

Righto. Is that the last loose end tidied up then? Time to mothball the thread (until next time Livi hit the buffers). Thanks to all the regulars on here. It's been a blast.

I don't really buy that line of argument. Mind you, it's quite difficult for a number of the Livi fans to dispute it, since "setting a dangerous precedent" has been a central plank of their argument for not wanting to be placed in division three - but luckily I'm not hamstrung by any such prior argument and I'm not convinced by the dangerous precedent argyment in one case any more than the other. Each case on its merits, that the SFL are (we think) not deducting points here does not mean they are unable to do so in future cases that they deem to be more serious. If there should ever be a suggestion that a team has postponed for tactical reasons because they think they may have a better chance of winning later on then the SFL will still be perfectly at liberty to deduct points to make sure its to no one's benefit to do so. Nothing they do here and now affects that, if they decide the circumstances are materially different (which they are).

So did anyone actually confirm this story of the £3K fine? I haven't seen anything on the SFL site, the Livi site, nor the Daily Telegraph. Granted, none of those sources have ever been much good for finding accurate info as to what's going on at Almondvale - has anyone seen anything yet? Did the Management Committee meeting even take place?

That would sound about fair, as long as the money goes to The Shire. Why all the secrecy?

I presume his point was that that would be far more difficult as most clubs had already tied up their budgets.

No, I very rarely watch one-day cricket, but it looks like it was a cracking game judging from the scorecard.

I don't think you are, each case on its merits - and in this case it was a game they were going to postpone themselves anyway if the appeal had been received in time to enable them to do so. That doesn't mean Livi weren't nonetheless wrong to do so unilaterally, but I think compensation is sufficient both to cover it and to act as deterrent. I seriously doubt they're setting themselves up for more similar incidents. And cheers, jimbo.

The issue is not whether or not the new owners had taken control of the club, it's whether or not an arrangement was in place to allow them to continue in business - ie a CVA. Until that happens it doesn't matter hwo confident the administrator or the new owners are that such an arrangement will be made, the administrator is not - legally - in a position to confirm it because it doesn't depend on them, it depends on the creditors being willing to accept an offer lower than the debt they're owed. jimbo: regardless of our disagreement as to the specific rights or wrongs of the SFL's action towards Livingston, I'm a bit perplexed by your logic that doing it to Gretna didn't set a precedent, but doing the same thing to Livi twelve months later does so, how does that work? And yes, contrary to what was suggested above, the decision was made for the same reason - inability to guarantee completing the season - and not because of anything to do with Gretna's ground. (I made the same error somewhere earlier in the thread and had to be put right, there'll be links to the SFL's statements at the time if anyone wants to go back and look for them.) Anyway, I may not have been posting on the thread for some weeks but I've still been reading it. It's about time to stop even that though because it's all become a bit silly with nothing happening. I'm going to chip in my thoughts on outstanding issues before disappearing though. The postponed fixture: It's pretty poor that the SFL are allowing this one to drag on so long; I know they're not a full-time professionally run outfit but it's not almost three months without a decision or any peep of one, for a matter that's potentially serious. I guess the fact they don't seem bothered suggests they don't deem it that serious, but Longmuir was still talking about the possibility of points deductions last time I heard him speak on it, and if that were to happen Livi would need to know asap so they know what they need to do this season. Personally, as noted at the time, and unlike most of my fellow Livi-bashers on here, I don't see the need for any such points deduction, I don't see it as that serious - a compensation payment to the Shire would cover it for me. The more interesting issue going forward is Livi's on-going financial situation. Even with reduced costs and better management there's no way they can be running that current squad on a break-even basis on gates well under a thousand (and remember that includes three hundred season ticket holders whose money disappeared into the ether with the previous owner). I'm not going to ascribe any sort of underhand motives to anyone involved, I think Rankine and McDougall both just like being involved in football and the perks that go with it, and I suspect by the time the scale of the difficulties became clear they were already more or less committed. (And they overestimated the leverage they had with their mates on hte SFL / SFA committees.) So I don't see any reason to look for ulterior motives with land deals or anything like that, but it'll be interesting to see how long things carry on for as they are going, and what the future holds. I'll still be watching. Nice to see you all again in the meantime.

Do any of the Leeds fans on here have an opinion on the current unexplained dodginess over the ownership issues?

I wish it to be noted that I was questioning the quality of writing rather than doubting the accuracy.

Why do you have to say "a footy ace" rather than " a first division footballer", or whatever?

I read his book just the other week, it's well worth a read - at least from the point of view of what he's been through (there are other books better from a purely sporting point of view). Really felt for him to hear this news this evening.

Well if Yorkshire are to be believed, it was only Hoggard himself who was talking about the captaincy. But still, got to feel he's a bit unlucky. The ECB have introduced the bonus scheme for younger players as well as effectively increasing wage costs by clamping down on the availability of cheap overseas imports; I probably support both moves but Hoggard is at a stage of his career where he's fallen victim to them. Given the slightly tawdry way in which his England career also came to an end I do feel for him a bit. There are plenty of worse players who have at least had the opportunity to finish up on their terms. (Not that I'm saying he's finished altogether, hopefully he'll get some more cricket somewhere.)

This'll teach that Murdoch fella for letting his newspaper switch sides: The Ashes to return to free to air television

Interesting selection. I hadn't seen Wright coming at all, but he'll be there as cover for Broad - his inclusion plus the omission of an extra batsman (Denly was widely tipped to be included) presumably means they're planning to play five bowlers come what may, though that'll be sorely tested if Prior were to get injured again. I'm less surprised by Plunkett, he was only 21 / 22 when he played for England before, didn't do too well but (like Anderson two or three years back) he's gone back to his county and by all accounts had a pretty good season. He's got everything to prove yet, but without Flintoff, and once they'd decided not to take Harmison, it was a straight choice between Plunkett and Mahmood if they wanted to have some genuine pace in the squad. And you really do want that option, on at least some of the South African pitches.

Or, you don't get him out early and this happens.

Actually can I double-check that with you - did you mean since the board arrived or just since last season? If it's the former do you know where those 55% savings have been made?

That's not the same question, but fair enough.

I'll take that as a No. As you were.