weeyin

It's relevant because, apparently, Aberdeen see themselves on a par with the OF and are likely to vote with Celtic on changes that negatively impact the 'wee' clubs like us (or prevent positive changes from passing). A 9 - 3 would nip those delusions of grandeur in the bud and give us protection when Sevco is reunited with its bigoted sibling.

From The Scotsman - “People were shouting at me to make changes, including McFadden. But I thought they were doing so well they all deserved to stay on” smiled McCall.

On the plus side, on MFC TV McCall said that will give him time to sit down with all the players and discuss new contracts.

No idea if we have signed him, but it's Jamie Longworth you are talking about. His stats

When I was a nipper, it a was all about the Kia-Ora and Chipmunk Crisps.

Pre-Bomber they did. We undoubtedly have the quality to beat them, I just won't be surprised if it's a one goal game.

This. St. Mirren play a system that is great at negating us. Hoping McCall can come up with an inventive way to counteract this (like he did against Aberdeen in the 4 - 1 game), but I reckon it could be a tight battle.

Imagine how exciting this year's league would have been if Celtic were out the picture too.

See if we had a proper league, we'd know the full fixture list at the start of the season and everybody would play the same teams the same number of times home and away.

7 goals for and 1 against in the past couple of games has helped our goal difference too. Not that I'm expecting it to come to that, but it's nice to be above ICT on points and GD.

Not even Brian McLair? I reckon that is just a story.

If you take off your blinkers the effect is almost the same.

If we get through this game with no serious injuries, I'll be happy. "Bomber" will have his players kicking us of the park.

Great occasion, terrible game. Ferguson had St. Mirren set up to kick teams off the park, so we set about them from the start. Not too much football played that day, especially in the first half (which was so bad the highlights that evening started with the second half kick-off).

Not at all, I was just wondering if there was some negotiation details that he wanted to share. Otherwise, the situation as I understand it is pretty much this: By McCall's own admission, the club presented him with a new contract a number of weeks ago. For a few weeks, McCall says he's been too busy to get around to signing it. Last week we hear the story, which may or may not be true, that his agents/managers/lawyers/whatever have now read it and are trying to negotiate over a specific release clause. Unless there have been details published about that specific clause that I'm not aware of, I have no idea how good or bad that is. Certainly, just because some money grubbing agent who benefits from his client moving as often as possible, is complaining about it, doesn't mean it's unreasonable. And I'm not going to fault the club for the speed in which they got a contract on the table, or the fact that they want to protect themselves from a Paw Broon situation. If anything, the fault lies with the individual (or his advisors) who dragged their heels when it came to reviewing it. However, as someone who spends a fair amount of time working with contracts, I know even the most straightforward ones can take weeks to agree once the lawyers get involved. Oh, and I do agree Gannon was not treated well by the club, I just don't see any parallels with this situation.

Details?

You know it's been an international week when the Ins & Outs Thread turns to McCall bashing. I hope the apologies appear as quickly when he signs his new deal.

Do you know where Randolph was? Reserve keeper for a 3rd tier English team who played about 60 games in 7 years (and only 14 for his employers). I'm not saying Hollis is as good as Randolph, but I guarantee nobody on here had a clue if Randolph was any good when we signed him. He certainly hadn't proved anything with, as you liked to call it, "a string of games at this level"

Ruddy and Randolph were both reserve keepers untested in a run of games at this level. They both bounced around loads of reserve games with the odd loan here and there to pick up a few lower league appearances. Any new keeper we sign is also likely to be a reserve player and also untested in a run of games at this level. If the coaching staff reckon Hollis is ready to step up, I'd have no problems with their judgement.

So in summary: An agent bigged up a player. We signed him after a trial. He played a dozen or so games and we punted him. The agent was a bit shady. Riveting.

McCall said we'd need to wait until top half of the table was guaranteed before we could finalize the details on the offers, so hopefully now the ball will be well and truly rolling.

There's a wee bit of a difference between pub opening times and slavery too.

Wee bit of a difference between decades of racial oppression and deciding if we play ICT twice or 3 times in a season though, eh?