weeyin

Players and managers want it both ways. They insist on contracts and getting paid when they aren't performing, and want to be able to leave whenever they can when they throw a strop and hand in a transfer request. Maybe we should go the whole hog and not have contracts for player. Just do what most of us have to do and pay them a monthly salary and if they don't perform they get a month's notice and shown the door.

I don't think Bosman's original complaint was wrong - some clubs were abusing the system and refusing to let players leave after their contract expired unless they received an acceptable fee. It was the reaction to his grievance that screwed football. A more equitable solution e.g. fees settled by a tribunal, could have been a good half measure and kept money in the game for smaller clubs. It definitely had a negative effect on club and international squads for a number of years.

It's all about maintaining a performance level for me - how's that for a cliché? However, if we can play reasonably well so that our form is maintained into the Christmas fixtures, this result is (almost) secondary.

Dornan was decent enough to win the Player of the Year in the 83/84 season. Always though he was a decent player and had a good turn of speed.

The way Man U are playing right now they could do worse than get Grimshaw into their first team.

It's a bit like being a shareholder in any business. You own a part of the company and you have rights to vote on different aspects of its running, but it's the CEO and the Board that run the day to day.

The plan is to own the club, but any discussion I have heard around running it has always been that they (or we) expect to have a Board in place of experienced directors that will execute the day to day duties. I can't think of any other way to make it feasible.

I think the team playing shite is the main factor.

I'm hoping guys like Moult appeared on the radar thanks to our new scouting infrastructure, but happy to give Baraclough credit if it was him that identified him. Hit 20 goals, sell him on for a few hundred grand, let Fletcher do the same next season, and our business plan start to take shape. Maybe.

The WS isn't going to be running the football club. Their job right now is to run the society and bring in new members. Regardless, the nominees are all volunteers - if there are any members with football club running experience who want their chance, I'm sure they'd be welcomed. The owners at Bolton might be available soon.

Their CVs were included in the voting email. I don't have it to hand, but someone can probably dig them out.

I received an email from the Society on 16th Nov regarding the elections.

This is why we need a 16 team league. Play each other twice, no split, 4 week winter break optional. The problem, of course, all comes down to potential loss of revenue and TV companies wanting the OF to play each other twice a week.

70% is ridiculously high.

That's where it gets more complicated. Is it better for someone like Thomas to get 15 or 20 lower division first team starts, or better for him to get a dozen sub appearances in our team? I'm not sure.

Agree that some first team competitive football in a lower division is a much better way to develop them than playing 16 and 17 year old opponents.

You'll understand it when, like me, you're old.

I'm in for that.

I'm still pretty sure that, at the time, UEFA handed out a directive that said "secondary" cup competitions couldn't be used to award European places - only the primary one i.e. Scottish Cup.

They brought the groups back (quite a) few year ago and they didn't work out very well. Too many meaningless games after the half way point and crowds plummeted. Prior to that, each tie was a 2 legged affair. I think it was after the groups failed they updated the format to have single leg ties, guaranteed result on the night and winner before Christmas. I liked that approach, but interested to see how the new groups work out. I think the European place was stopped by UEFA.

Remember it well. Freezing conditions up there all month. Got the stage where the match was being rescheduled every morning for the following day until the "thaw" set in. I think even when they played it there were concerns about exposure.

Admittedly I can only watch the highlights., but most of the names mentioned here have been inconsistent even at the U20s level, never mind stepping up. I really want to see one or two break through as well, but the added challenge is the fact that number one priority over the next few weeks is to establish a league position nearer the middle of the table.

The question for any youngster is "will I get more first team football at a better team or will I need to drop down a level?" There's merit to dropping down, but it's early days and they might see more playing time in the New Year.

If it's any consolation, McGhee is quoted in an interesting Scotsman article today:

SPFL season currently runs from August 1st to the Cup final on 21st of May. Almost 10 full months. If you want summer football with that length of season you either need games in December or February. The annual pitch renovation would also need to take place in those 2 months off during winter when the grass won't grow. So I imagine everyone would need to go artificial surfaces.