houston_bud

I think that's fair. Good chance we've seen the last of him if his contract is up in the summer. I wouldn't be upset if we kept him on, but I'd expect Robinson will be looking to bring in some new faces.

Greive will be a good addition to the squad. Whether he'll nail down a starting spot and set the heather alight, I'm not sure. But he'll do a job, and chip in with a few goals.

I always wanted it work work out for Greive. Whilst he's not been terrible and has chipped in with some very important goals, he doesn't look like he's going to nail down a regular place any time soon. Maybe the run of games will see him improve and he'll come back all guns blazing. Or has he played his last game for us? Does anyone know when his contract is up?

Can't disagree with that assessment.

I don't know if that makes it better or worse.

No, it's the opposite. They get 'winding down payments' if they lose their seat or step aside at an election. They get nothing if they resign mid Parliament.

I wonder if anyone has checked on him, as he's clearly struggling. I can't imagine he has many mates though.

There's always been reasons to moan about it, but it is noticeably worse now than it has been in recent years. Conroy made a point yesterday about referees' safety in the wake of Rangers singling out Willie Collum. It was probably a fair point, but - for yet another weekend - they spent over half an hour discussing one decision making a far bigger deal out of it than they need to.

Pretty big gamble to accept a pittance with a sell on. Most players end up running down contracts and moving on, so I think the chances of a bumper pay deal from a sell on aren't great. For Baccus to leave now I'd be looking for at least £200k with a decent sell on.

The national broadcaster - funded by taxpayers to provide a service - should be above that type of thing though. I appreciate I'm preaching to the choir here. Surely they could do both? Keep a couple of midweek Scottish Football Podcast slots for Tom English and Michael Stewart to argue over whatever nonsense they've chosen that week, but keep Saturday Sportsound for giving a bit of insight into games up and down the country.

I also think had Hart been up right and Olusanya had caught him in the waist with his studs it would've probably been a red. I think he's unlucky but I reckon that gets given almost every time, although I didn't see the O'Donnell one you refer to.

I thought the same with this. Australia start their games a day before Japan (and two days before Korea), which might explain why Baccus had to leave a day earlier but it did irk me. I suppose it's not Celtic's fault though. As for the game, I'm just glad we never got a doing after the start we had. Felt a bit sorry for Olusanya as it was totally accidental, but I don't think he can complain. The VAR check and subsequent red card definitely took the focus away from Alistair Johnston's play acting moments before.

I've never been particularly impressed with Duk either. He's had rave reviews after some games but I can't think of a game I've seen him where he didn't just throw himself to the ground constantly and become quite petulant.

I said in my first comment on this that I wasn't just having a pop at Rangers, but the clamour for VAR so we 'get to the right decisions', only for people to then question the process because the decision goes against their team, despite being the right one.

Would it? Or because it the VAR decision was not to give a penalty do they stick with the onfield decision? That's a genuine question, I don't know the answer. Ultimately, not to award the penalty was the right call. Rangers jumping up and down, demanding the audio doesn't change that. If there were problems, that's for the SFA to deal with, not Rangers.

But it was the right decision not to award the penalty. Surely everyone agrees with that?

What we heard ad nauseam when people were arguing for VAR is that we just want to get to the right decision. But now we see when a decision goes against a team their argument frequently shifts to one about 'process' or 'transparency'. This isn't just a dig at Rangers, loads of pundits, managers and fans do the same. It's almost as if they just want decisions to go their way. Who'd have thought it?

I take your point, but - as you say - Goodwin improved us. Semi finals were a disappointment, but we haven't managed a semi final since. We missed out on top 6 by a last minute goal, then the next season we were looking good for top 6 until he left. By any measure he was a good manager for us. We got a few quid from Aberdeen and managed to bring in another good manager, so definitely worked out well for us.

Goodwin was a good manager for us. He also put Aberdeen in their place a couple of times.

I don't have a huge issue with appointments but there needs to be a much stronger process of confirming these appointments. Whatever you might think of George Folkes, he is an ex cabinet minister and was also in the Scottish Parliament. But unfair to lump him in with Botham. There maybe should be a time limit on how long people can serve. I would still argue that, for all its faults, the Lords does a better job than the commons or even committees at scrutinising legislation. But the Conservatives and successive PMs have tried to break it.

Truss announcing a resignation honours list. Couldn't mark her neck with a blow torch. To coin a phrase - That. Is. A. Dis. Grace. Sunak's polling might take a slight increase if he was to reject it. The House or Lords, has the potential to be a good second chamber for scrutinising the government, but it's been deliberately broken by the recent Conservative PMs.

Definitely, but he's compared himself to Lincoln before. I'm sure that, more than once, he's - laughably - said about him doing more for African Americans than any President since Lincoln.

Absolutely. The whole thing is a complete circus and I can't for the life of me understand why the vast majority of America can't see it.

I'm not against processing applicants in a third country if it makes it easier for people to apply - someone fleeing the DRC for example can obviously get to Tanzania much more easily than the UK, if they can apply from there then come to the UK if accepted, that could be a good thing. The bit in bold is the crux of it for me. Policy by focus group. Whilst the current Conservatives have made gimmicks their go to for policies, too many parties are guilty of creating policies just for a headline to try and appease certain groups in society. Martin Lewis made a great point about immigration policy the other day, arguing that when polled a majority of people will answer that they want lower immigration, but when asked more specifically about care workers/NHS workers etc, a majority will say they're ok with that. I'd like to see Labour reframe the debate but I won't hold my breath.

I'd count Elvis Bwomono as an 'in' for St Mirren as he can't play until January.