Kmcalpin

Thats true up to a point. However during the game the cameraman has discretion as to what to film and what not to film. If highlights are broadcast then the editor(s) have discretion as to what to include and what to omit.

A bit less than us. Ground capacity also limits big game attendances.

I think thats right. However had we opted not to sign another a striker we may have been able to offer him a bit more. From what I hear Ross County are paying crazy wages just now. Thats not not sustainable, even with a sugar daddy, and they've been in financial trouble before.

I tend to agree with the Captain and Brainier. However, as we know referees can change their mind between the actual game and submitting their reports. He may say something along the lines of "At the time I didn't think it was a foul but in retrospect and having seen TV evidence I should have issued a yellow/red card."

Robinson. I first heard that we were in advanced negotiations with Irvine at the Livingston game which would have been on 18 July. My understanding is that Ian Baraclough wanted to sign Irvine and an another striker (Robinson). In the event he was told we had sufficient money for one so he opted for a striker. These things can take a few weeks to come to fruition and negotiations with signing targets can take weeks or months.

Are we talking about the same incidents? In the first 20 minutes he poleaxed Johnson with the ball nowhere near them. I would deem each to be a straight red card.

Yep, its all down to what the TV editors decide to show and highlight. A very subjective approach.

As far as I'm led to believe very close. However we spent the cash on another striker no longer at the club and couldn't afford both.

He did Haggis. He fielded players like Dusan Pernis, Gary Kenneth, Jon Daly, Mark Kerr, and Willo Flood and turned United into a pretty physical team capable of intimidating most sides. In our games against them you'd often see the odd brutal challenge or two - a straight leg/studs up assault by Pernis on Jamie Murphy comes to mind. Physicality has been their trademark ever since with guys like Cifti coming in. However Friday night was a new low for them. On that type of behaviour they'll be no loss to the Premiership if they go down.

I don't agree on this occasion Weeyin. Yes, you do expect some teams fighting for survival get a bit fired up and put in tasty tackles but last night some of their "challenges" if we may call them that, went beyond the pale. Morris poleaxing Johnson twice off the ball early on and not far from the linesman was inexcusable and should have earned him 2 straight reds. It was behaviour more appropriate to a drunken brawl at scaling time outside a pub.

If McDonald's case is reviewed it will be very interesting indeed to see what other cases in the same game are also reviewed. There are at least 3 other possibilities. It will be a real test of the system.

I stand corrected in that case. However the referee did change his view of the incident in his written report and that was one factor in the final decision. Apparently this kind of U turn is fairly rare in referee's reports.

An important and indeed deserved win for us last night. For me, Moult, MacDonald, Johnson stood out although Thomas, Gomis, Cadden, Lasley, Hall, McManus and Ripley all performed well. Hammell and Law had an off night and gave their opponents far too much space. It was an exciting and open game and perhaps United just deserved to be head at half time. Fortunately we scored the equaliser just before the break and were the better side in the second half. I didn't like the way we sat back in the late stages but we did see our the added time very well. United were brutal and deserved what they got and more. Anier and Morris should have walked before half time for sly and totally unnecessary off the ball assaults on Johnson. MacDonald was out of order for his elbow admittedly but Paton should have been red carded for his efforts. The bottom line is that the referee lost control of the game. No two guesses what United's pre match meal comprised - raw meat. Although not a major incident, the foul given against Dom Thomas was of for the worst decisions I've seen in years. Thomas took the ball cleanly in an innocuous 50/50 challenge, with no physical contact whatsoever and was deemed to have behaved unfairly. All in all though a good performance and an excellent fightback. This will do the squad's confidence no harm at all. Credit to the management and players. Things are looking up.

I don't think so - remember Darren Randolph's challenge on Callum Paterson - upgraded from a yellow to a red. However I seem to recall that the ref changed his mind in his written report and said he'd made an error in letting Randolph lightly.

That wasn't a game to judge our strikers on - service to them was appalling.

We're not quite safe yet but not far off it. Killie could overtake us with 4 wins and 2 draws. Accies could achieve safety by winning 3 and drawing 2 games. I'd say another 2 wins will seal our safety. You're right though - both Accies and Killie won't achieve this rate of return. There will be some twists and turns to come yet though.

Your assumption is wrong.

Good to hear from you Big Yin!

Given young Turnbull's brace at Dingwall and goal at Forfar it seems he's one to watch especially as he's a good bit younger than the players he's faced in these games.

On the basis of our league position and performances, we've made progress this year, but it has been modest. Mark McGhee will start by looking at the players out of contract and then perhaps those he would like to move on. Then young players likely to break through. He'll look at the balance of the team ie too many strikers and not enough midfielders and only then will he look at areas of the team he wants to strengthen. Certainly the squad looks to be unbalanced in terms of age. We have McManus, Pearson, Hammell, Lasley and McFadden all on the wrong side of 30, some considerably so. Certainly if we can finish above 11th place we'll be able to make decisions and start recruiting a bit earlier than we did last season.

I remain to be convinced. When I see several thousand Rangers or Celtic fans identified and banned for sectarianism or crowd disorder then I'll believe it.

Stewards will also be acting on Police advice as to what they should or should not do. At big games, its unlikely that stewards would do very much without Police sayso.

I've no problem with the pitch statement. I'm not suggesting a detailed rebuttal of every point nor a comprehensive justification of every action - just a summary to prove to the fans that we simply didn't roll over to the SPFL's kangaroo court. For example - stewarding - "the club provided twice the minimum level of stewarding required and there is no further official guidance on this". Next point.....

That may well be the case Andy but I would have liked the club to have released a slightly more detailed response - not a blow by blow account but a summary of the key points to mirror the SPFL's statement. There are still some unanswered questions in my mind ie the conduct of some Rangers fans who threw missiles onto the pitch.

Apologies. At any rate we do seem to have a few promising youngsters about to break through. That can only be a good thing.