weeyin

I'd be quite happy to see Scott back at Fir Park. I think he'd enjoy the formation we play.

We don't need Clark, though, so taking him would just be wasting a wage.

Clark scored even less goals than Shankland last season. If they want to give us a player, offering us someone they want to replace with TW is an insult. Give us one of their promising youngsters instead.

There is real science to show what they called "Contract Year Syndrome" in the US is a measurable effect. That is when players perform at an artificially high level during the last year of their contract in order to get a better future deal. Then, in the first year of their new contract, they often have a post-contract performance crash.

For me, Shankland hasn't proved himself at Premiership level yet. In his one and only season our top flight he scored 8 goals. There are a boat load of players that knock them in for fun in the lower leagues that never quite make it in the top flight - we've developed a few of them ourselves. Shankland might yet become a 20 a season striker at Premiership level, but he needs to start proving it soon and he hasn't been doing it in Belgium either. Of course, we like to give players a chance to prove themselves, so it might be a good fit, but wouldn't be my first choice. If TW does move on, in Jan, though, I'm quite happy for Shields to get his chance and see how that works out.

We still have Lamie, Donnelly, Maguire and O'Hara that can play there even if Sol and Ojala are injured. Not to mention Carroll at a push.

I've been a fan of Bevis, but it's a credit to GA and the team that if he did leave in January we would still be in good shape for central defenders.

I think it only becomes a distraction for the fans. And, of course, the papers need to keep recycling stories to fill their pages this time of year. For clubs and players this business as usual and they have no problems dealing with it. You can guarantee GA and the scouts would have multiple targets lined up to replace TW since the summer (in case he moved then), and will have others in mind this window if required. On the other hand GA might be happy enough having Shields step up as a ready-made replacement and not worry about trying to find another striker until the summer.

I took a few statistics classes at Uni, but I struggle to understand some of the meaning of some of these. Partly because there isn't much public detail available about exactly how they are derived - you need to pay for that - but mostly because they don't make much sense at footballing level. I can see how it makes a lot more sense in a game like baseball where a lot of the ideas were developed. A guy standing pitching a ball and another guy standing and hitting it with a bat is a lot easier to analyse than 11 players playing another 11 players who are allowed to run around and defend and tackle etc. Not to say they are all useless, but I think a lot of them are questionable, at least without a lot of context that isn't shared to the non-paying public.

If he's here after January and we're paying his wages, I'd be squeezing him (or any other player) for every ounce of effort we can get out of him. Like I said earlier, I'd rather we moved on players who no longer want to play for us ASAP, but if they are taking my hard earned pounds for 4 months I'd prefer something to show for it.

TBH, I'm not sure why people get so worked up about players leaving a club like ours. Our public business model is to bring in players - especially those with a point to prove and/or a career to resurrect - and move them on. If Watt does move in Jan, we still got a bargain by signing him for free and getting some top performances from him. The fact that he bought into our club and its community philosophy is a credit to him and our club's signing strategy. Despite his good showing, I think it's more of a risk for TW to leave for a club like Utd. than it is for us to lose him (just ask John Sutton), but I certainly won't bear any grudges when he go. At the end of the day, it's a job, and most of us consider better wages when they are offered, even if we don't always take them. And, as always, we can hold him up an example of how beneficial our club can be to a career when we are looking to recruit.

I noticed that. And helped keep Robinson's Morcambe in the relegation zone.

£20k for each goal he scores until the end of the season and £100k for each position higher they finish this season after they sign him.

Nah. It was to stop all the shenanigans when opponents added themselves to the end of a wall.

Like I said, Skippy was signed by Celtic in March, but played for us the remainder of the season. So while it's not typical, it's certainly possible. In general though, I tend to agree that when player wants to leave we should just punt them ASAP. In this particular case, I'd let him go early for free, but add a clause in the contract that says Utd pay us £20k for each goal he scores before the end of the season.

True. "When it doubt, kick it out" is still a good tactic for a defender.

Aye, Kipré had his back to the play. Keeper can see what's going on and needed to give him a shout to claim it or clear it.

They've had a slight dip in form recently. 2 wins and 3 draws in their last 5 and losing to Derby right now thanks to a disastrous mix-up between Kipré and his keeper to concede - although 99% keeper's fault. Having said that, the last few games I've seen them play, Cedric has been doing well. Seems to have a lot more freedom to get up the park, which he's been enjoying.

Two more random thoughts from the game. 1) For the "we always struggle against teams like Livi" brigade, I read this morning that in our past 22 meetings, we have won 16 and drawn 4. 2) The pitch is in great condition.

He's definitely back at WBA - I'm watching him play now. I don't know that all the transfer clauses were made public, but if it's anything like Marvin Johnson (and no reason to think otherwise) then I think we are due a cut of future transfer fees.

Whether we like it or not, most of this comes down to agreements between clubs and players. We bring in players on the basis that we can improve their careers and, if they succeed, they can move on to better things. You often hear managers saying "we won't stand in their way" - and they mean that. Most of them have been players themselves, and know how a transfer negotiation can affect your game. The pre-contract situation just makes things more complicated. Some players can handle that no problem. Skippy is a good example of that. Others, not so much. Then you need to account for other factors such as strength of the current squad, available replacements (if required), finances, cost of selling vs higher league position and, as others have pointed out, is the player moving to a rival. I get the feeling that if we held on to Watt until the summer that he'd adopt the right attitude and maintain his level of performance. However, the club might feel it's better to bring in some cash and new blood and let Watt move on in January. With the possibility of reduced numbers in the crowds (or no crowds at all) looming, that also might factor in the equation. A final consideration is that if we do let Watt move on, it again shows to potential new signings that we are a good club to deal with if you are looking to develop your career. The only surprise to me is that he seems to be choosing Dundee Utd. It seems like he doesn't want to leave Scotland again, but happy to risk leaving the club he says "suits him perfectly" for a relatively small bump in wages.

And if Lyndon Dykes is in a 2-man wall, most refs just get confused.

If Woolery hadn't done his "can't trap a bag of cement" trick I'd have have given it to Shields for what would have been 2 assists and a strong overall contribution. Kaiyne robbed him of that, though, so I've gone for van Veen.

Place your cross in the Christmas Box.

If we're still paying his wages, he should be earning his keep. Get him starting.