Kmcalpin

I don't understand why the SPFL board is taking so long to "rubber stamp" the vote of Premiership clubs which was due to be concluded at 1700hrs. If administrative homework was done beforehand by the SPFL officials it should be straightforward. But then again none of these SPFL processes are ever straightforward.

Thats pretty much it Iain. If Watt wants to chase the big money then he'll head south, however its just possible that he may have other considerations. If he did want to stay in Scotland then surely a club like Hearts, Hibs or Aberdeen might want him. I don't doubt that Dundee are interested in him, as they are in Declan Gallagher, but I don't take that paper talk too seriously. They have a history of shelling out the odd big wage, and don't forget they tried to land Faddy (!!!) years ago. My guess is that they have been trying desperately to offload Cummings for some time and that would free up £2.5- £4 grand a week.

Yes, Covid has touched many families including my own. I agree about the 500 figure, but in fairness any limit is going to be arbitrary. In terms of the reasons behind such a restriction I agree that the actual stadium attendance is the lesser of the 2 risks, but surely the dangers of transmission are far greater in a smaller ground like say New Bayview (500 occupied seats out of 1,980 - 25.3%) than in say Pittodrie (500 occupied seats out of 20,866 - 2.3%)? In terms of the greater risk, that is the effect on public transport, I doubt that 500 fans would make much difference. Most of those 500 will not travel to stadia by public transport; probably considerably less than half will. Of those who do, not all will have the same trip origin. Whilst agreeing that public health must be our priority, I doubt if this restriction to 500 attendees at football matches will make much difference health wise, but it will make an economic difference. However, scale that up to say 20,000 and over thats where a real difference could kick in. 50,000 going to Ibrox or Parkhead would create a huge risk for those travelling by bus or train or underground. All that said, public transport will be much reduced on Boxing Day anyway. In my view this is a very blunt measure which, on balance, may do more harm than good. Thats not to say that some kind of crowd restriction shouldn't be introduced in a more targeted way.

Fair point. I suppose that politically this is about economics. The health risks of travelling to a shopping centre might be similar to travelling to a football stadium but the economic impact of restrictions would be greater and public resistance also greater. Thats an ssumption on my part though as we don't have the data to back these decisons up, as Great Balls of Shire rightly says, only Professor Leitch's comments about the risks of travel on public transport.

If we accept Professor Leitch's argument, which I do, then the capacity of, or the size of the crowd inside Fir Park, is largely irrelevant. Its how people travel to Fir Park thats the problem. Yes, absence of data is an issue.

Not against this in principle, but have issues with the detail. Prof Jason Leitch said a few days ago that he had no problem with crowds at large events, outdoors or even indoors. His issue was with how people were going to get there ie in crowded buses or trains. Now given that public transport will be minimal on Boxing Day, couldn't the restrictions have come into force on the 27th? Maybe not a huge issue you might think but many clubs will be detrimentally affected by that one day's change. In any event, many people are totally disregarding basic laws and advice, like the wearing of face coverings, anyway but thats a wider public health enforcement issue. As an aside, many clubs will find it difficult to ballot season ticket holders in time for Sunday.

It will depend on how long the Omicron variant (sorry about the jargon) wave lasts. If it decreases markedly by late February then there's no reason to keep stadia closed.

Yes, January is a funny month for transfers but I doubt if the club would entertain any offer below £500K. If we were to accept an offer much below that then that could jeopardise our final league position (£80k per place) or a decent cup run.

I suspect that we are a bit less streetwise than our opponents and get caught more often. We're no saints ourselves but the amounbt of jersey pulling St Johnstone got off with on Saturday was unbelievable. Shaun Rooney alone committed about 3 fouls on Tony Watt in rapid succession without being pulled up. When it comes to foul stats I take them with a large spoonful of salt.

Charged on suspicion of drink driving I believe.

Well I think our directors have been proven right to appoint GA opposed to Tom Wright. That was a curious move by the Rugby Park board just after an abandoned game. Presumably they're blaming Wright for the fog? Shenanigans also at Dundee where Jason Cummings is being disciplined. Maybe Dundee are taking the opportunity to force out an out of favour player? It'll be interesting how they deal with Charlie Adam. Yes, in hindsight, our board made a good decision.

A good win and a deserved one. We managed the game well in the latter stages, which was pleasing. Great to see young Dean Cornelius get hsi first goal; a real peach.

A tight game, as expected, but we really do need to tighten up at the back, especially on the wings. We're missing Slattery's "streetwiseness" in midfield. So far so good though.

W've had 2 or 3 wee warnings at the back. We need to tighten up.

Well taken goal by young Cornelius.

Its affected St Johnstone today, and who knows it may have affected us. Time will tell just how serious this variant is. In terms of today's game, St Johnstone will provide well organised and hard working opposition to try to nullify us.

The question is what is decent cash? I'd say £500k plus.

Time to look for a replacement in the summer. Unless we receive a substantial offer Tony Watt will be be with us until June.

Should we try to extend Jordan Roberts' loan deal until the end of the season? My view is that he hasn't shown enough to warrant it.

Generally speaking, I agree with you. However, there has to be a minimum level of consistency, even for us. Hopefully he won't prove to be a Stuart Elliott type of signing.

Not a single one anywhere?

I've not been convinced of Van Veen I have to say. Undoubtedly he has loads of talent and can produce something special but he doesn't do that very often and is a bit temperamental and rash. Is that down to the way we play him or is it just his style?

Thats it in a nutshell for me. Fortunately no red cards or stretcher cases. Given our injury list, I'd have bitten your hand off for a 1-0 reverse at 3pm. Given his record, I can't really criticise GA but given Van Veen's temperament and the need for a tireless runner up front I'd have been tempted to start with Shields up front today but thats academic. Hopefully our team selection was influenced by upcoming games and not today's fixture.

Our defence gives me the fears. Damage limitation today.

Yes, he'd be in my top 5 post 1960 strikers.