rgreig

It would be useful to know from a Montrose fan if there has been an increase in budget at Montrose or whether he has achieved this with roughly the same money for the playing squad that his predecessors had. If it's been done within the same budget then it's certainly impressive. Does anyone know what his job outside football actually is?

Could he not meet them over Zoom?

Agreed. I like the commentary team but as well as that the video is good - good frame rate and the multiple cameras are used pretty well. It's clear that whoever helps run it knows what they are doing. Like many I initially thought that Ndaba was being played in midfield again when I saw the team sheet and feared the worst, but moving Muirhead into midfield was a great move because I think Ndaba and Baird worked really well together - as the commentators said, Ndaba strolled through the game today barely putting a foot wrong. You do wonder whether that formation had been ruled out by Kerr in the past and if so why? I can't recall Ndaba being played at centre half at all prior to this game and it clearly worked very well. Also I thought McKenzie did well and deserves to start on Tuesday night again.

Is my memory right that he scored a fairly spectacular own goal at Somerset Park while playing for Dunfermline (maybe a cup tie?). I remember he got absolute pelters for the rest of the match but to be fair to him I think he took it in (fairly) good grace. Or maybe it was someone else who used to play for them.

Although they are sitting third now, across the course of his time at Stranraer, Farrell's record is not great - win rate of just over 30%. I don't have context to know whether that is explainable. Young is better but not jumping out. I still come back to Houston as having solid experience and a record that even on paper is very good. He also comes across well in interviews and I think he could develop other aspects of the club such as the youth programmes.

100% agree. Let's go for experience and proven record at our level. No idea if he would be interested but on that basis Peter Houston ticks the boxes.

Young doesn't have a particularly good win percentage - just under 38% with East Fife. But Petrie does seem to have a very good record at Montrose with a win rate of nearly 48% . Obviously stats on their own are dangerous but assuming Montrose doesn't have a big budget compared with the rest of the division (does anyone know?) Petrie does seem to be doing well and worthy of consideration for a step up.

I don't believe that when these signings were made people celebrated them from the perspective of "we are getting these players instead of strikers". They are definitely decent players (although I personally don't rate Zanatta) but any player can only be effective within a balanced team where each person knows their job and how they fit into the formation. In our case, I don't think Kerr even knows that let alone the players.

I thought the frame rate was OK in the first half but it did deteriorate in the second. The odd thing is that it appears to be worse on one of the cameras. As you say, the number of people viewing should not matter. At no point was it particularly high quality though. I had assumed the issue is the encoder rather than the camera, but that isn't supported by the fact that the footage on ayrunitedmedia suffers from the same problems. Looking at the Dunfermline match last week, the live stream had a number of issues but someone confirmed that the camera was reasonable (JVC HM170U) and the highlights were excellent 1080p60 (and clearly from exactly the same source as the live feed). If I were to have to choose between a more competent stream or a better camera vantage point I would take the vantage point as this point.

What is the reason? Or do you mean people watching over a 4G/5G network?

Is he definitely not playing three at the back?

Maybe it was just because I was there rather than watching it on a screen but I thought the one at Partick was even more impressive because of the way he took it and the pace and dip he managed to get on it. Anyway I think he has sewn up the goal of the month award for January.

Forecast on the BBC saying 6 degrees by lunchtime. If they make the decision at 8am I presume little chance of it going ahead but if they look at the forecast I would say it may be on?

I agree with this. We have played well in patches but seemingly are unable to do so for even 45 out of 90 minutes. Kerr seems fairly honest in his post-match assessments and I think he is right to say that he is being let down by certain individuals. However he doesn't help with bizarre decisions like playing Zanatta (in my opinion his worst signing) ahead of Moffat in a position where he is clearly unsuited. I think he would do well to settle on a system and focus on making that work, and changes he can make in the transfer window will be key to his future here. He is a new manager and bound to make mistakes so the question is whether he is able to find solutions.

It would be quite short-sighted to charge for basic content such as post-match interview or regular highlights. I realise the club will be looking to maximise revenue but the way to do that is to have sufficiently value-add content that free users can be tempted to subscribe. For example, having extended highlights where either the manager, assistant or even one of the senior players provides commentary would be worth paying for in my opinion and would be a clear differentiator from the free tier. I do think that the club should be applauded for looking to create a revenue stream from this - and the content does seem promising so far.

Yes, frame rate is rubbish yet again. Also camera angle not great - you rarely get a sufficiently wide angle view.

What international did he sign? Jens Martin Knudsen?

Yes, it's fantastic. Excellent resolution and frame rate - makes it so much more enjoyable on a large screen. Very good camera work and I like the commentary.

Further research shows that it is not available in the UK (which makes complete sense).

Does the contract with AMG specify that they cannot distribute to UK betting companies? As far as I can gather from some googling, bet365 can legitimately show the coverage in the UK and all they require is a "funded" account.

It looked like the problem with the quality of the streaming was separate to the one at the start, which was related to the linking of purchased content to accounts. So unfortunate for them they had two issues to deal with. The big challenge here is that in general clubs just won't have access to people with the skills required to run these services - or understand them sufficiently well to know what to do to resolve problems under pressure. This is a major problem in technology generally - there is a huge skills gap. But I agree with your point that they should start the live stream much earlier so that they can give themselves far longer to debug issues. I guess it it might cost them some more in bandwidth charges but not as much as paying out refunds. (As an aside, although I thought it was appalling there is no way I would even consider requesting a refund given that it is a small club who need the money). Are these actually illegal? I thought that Pixellot had the rights to sell the live stream to betting companies. Or are the betting companies not supposed to make the content available in the UK (which would make sense)? I think the fact that these streams were absolutely fine in terms of quality shows that the system has some merits now that it has operator-controlled PTZ cameras. 100% agree. I do think that there needs to be some thought given to how to run it more effectively across the league - it appears that many clubs rely on volunteers to get any kind of decent service and even where there are volunteers it is clear they don't all have the relevant skills.

Yes, me too and the quality is appalling. By far the worst of any match this season.

I suppose it would be useful to know is it working for *anybody*?

Yes, exactly the same here.

Yes, fair play to them, they have improved each game and this was the best by some considerable distance. Although it was quite noisy at times - the main camera clearly does not do well in low light - the frame rate was much better for most of the game. The replays were well done and the switching between cameras was good. I don't think anyone will be asking for a refund this week. I agree completely that a higher camera position would be the next thing to address - could our vice chairman not assist with a temporary raised platform? Could we not even bring in a couple of small cherry pickers given there is no crowd?