DoofersDad

An important issue here is that with all the injuries we have and the importance of getting players back, we don't ask too much of them too soon and that they don't ask too much of themselves too soon. Anyone know about Roberts and Vincent? I thought they were meant to be out with relatively minor problems. Getting Meekings, Tremarco, Vincent and Roberts fully fit should help give a lot more solidity to the team.

HT 2 - 0 FT 3 - 0 ICT Ferguson Opp Loy Time 12

Any chance the two Ryan Christie threads can be merged?

Not really. Wigan could have waited six months and got him for free. Dundee Utd are having to compensate Wigan for releasing him from his contract., which has about 21 months to run. If £150k buys out 6 months, then Utd should be paying over 500k to buy out 12 months! I don't think that is right. Utd do not need to compensate Wigan because Wigan are happy to let him go. It is Wigan who need to compensate Mckay for ending his contract 17 months early. If McKay is going to be paid £1500 a week less at Utd then Mckay will be wanting roughly £100,000 in lost earnings. From Wigan's perspective, even if they give that to Mckay, selling him means that they release £2,500 a week and get £200k into the coffers. For a a player who cost them £150k and has not scored a competitive goal for them in 7 months, that's not a bad bit of business. No. Wigan were only happy to let him go once a certain value was reached - remember that Utd had a couple of previous bids rejected. Clearly the player doesn't have to move if the wage is less, and at that point Wigan may well have to offer something to make up for the drop in earnings. And if they give £100k to Mckay, they won't be getting £200k into their coffers. It goes without saying that Wigan want to get as much as they can for Billy and that Billy doesn't have to go unless he is willing to go - but that is irrelevant to the argument here. As things stand with Billy as a Wigan player they are committed to paying Billy, £4K a week for a further 17 months. Utd are offering him £2.5K a week. If Wigan agree to compensate for Billy's loss of earnings in full then Wigan could continue to pay Billy the difference of £1.5K a week for the next 17 months. That is quite separate from the fee they receive from Utd. They still get £200K into the bank but would be paying Billy £2.5K per week less than they are now. Over the course of the rest of Billy's contract that is a reduction in wages to Billy of £170K. By selling Mckay to Utd for £200K and fully compensating the player for loss of earnings, Wigan get £200K into the coffers and reduce their wage bill by £170K compared to where they would be if Billy simply dug his heels in and said he was staying. Given that he seems to have dropped out of their plans altogether, that seems like a no-brainer on behalf of Wigan. Interestingly, the fact that they did not accept a lower offer previously would suggest considerably more astuteness in the transfer market than we are displaying. It is also interesting to note that if the suggested deal regarding Christie goes ahead, the money received would allow us to buy back Billy and pay him on the same basis as Utd have offered. However, one year down the line we would have no Christie and two years down the line Billy's contract would be up and there would be no money left! If they commit to pay Billy £100k, they would have to set that aside or account for it, or however you wish to phrase it. So either the whole £200k is not available to them, as they have to make a provision of £100k, or some other budget takes the hit. Assuming the £1.5K compensation to Billy is made on a weekly on monthly basis or on what ever basis they are paying him £4K a week now, they will be shelling out £2.5K less per week in the future than they are now. They do not need to budget for the £1.5K a week because these are not extra costs. Quite the contrary, they release the £2.5K a week that Billy's new club will be paying him.

Not really. Wigan could have waited six months and got him for free. Dundee Utd are having to compensate Wigan for releasing him from his contract., which has about 21 months to run. If £150k buys out 6 months, then Utd should be paying over 500k to buy out 12 months! I don't think that is right. Utd do not need to compensate Wigan because Wigan are happy to let him go. It is Wigan who need to compensate Mckay for ending his contract 17 months early. If McKay is going to be paid £1500 a week less at Utd then Mckay will be wanting roughly £100,000 in lost earnings. From Wigan's perspective, even if they give that to Mckay, selling him means that they release £2,500 a week and get £200k into the coffers. For a a player who cost them £150k and has not scored a competitive goal for them in 7 months, that's not a bad bit of business. No. Wigan were only happy to let him go once a certain value was reached - remember that Utd had a couple of previous bids rejected. Clearly the player doesn't have to move if the wage is less, and at that point Wigan may well have to offer something to make up for the drop in earnings. And if they give £100k to Mckay, they won't be getting £200k into their coffers. It goes without saying that Wigan want to get as much as they can for Billy and that Billy doesn't have to go unless he is willing to go - but that is irrelevant to the argument here. As things stand with Billy as a Wigan player they are committed to paying Billy, £4K a week for a further 17 months. Utd are offering him £2.5K a week. If Wigan agree to compensate for Billy's loss of earnings in full then Wigan could continue to pay Billy the difference of £1.5K a week for the next 17 months. That is quite separate from the fee they receive from Utd. They still get £200K into the bank but would be paying Billy £2.5K per week less than they are now. Over the course of the rest of Billy's contract that is a reduction in wages to Billy of £170K. By selling Mckay to Utd for £200K and fully compensating the player for loss of earnings, Wigan get £200K into the coffers and reduce their wage bill by £170K compared to where they would be if Billy simply dug his heels in and said he was staying. Given that he seems to have dropped out of their plans altogether, that seems like a no-brainer on behalf of Wigan. Interestingly, the fact that they did not accept a lower offer previously would suggest considerably more astuteness in the transfer market than we are displaying. It is also interesting to note that if the suggested deal regarding Christie goes ahead, the money received would allow us to buy back Billy and pay him on the same basis as Utd have offered. However, one year down the line we would have no Christie and two years down the line Billy's contract would be up and there would be no money left!

Not really. Wigan could have waited six months and got him for free. Dundee Utd are having to compensate Wigan for releasing him from his contract., which has about 21 months to run. If £150k buys out 6 months, then Utd should be paying over 500k to buy out 12 months! I don't think that is right. Utd do not need to compensate Wigan because Wigan are happy to let him go. It is Wigan who need to compensate Mckay for ending his contract 17 months early. If McKay is going to be paid £1500 a week less at Utd then Mckay will be wanting roughly £100,000 in lost earnings. From Wigan's perspective, even if they give that to Mckay, selling him means that they release £2,500 a week and get £200k into the coffers. For a a player who cost them £150k and has not scored a competitive goal for them in 7 months, that's not a bad bit of business.

I would grab it only if there is a resale clause etc there as well. If Christie has a good season and continues to develop Celtic will have a very valuable asset on their hands. Celtic of course are taking a risk that Christie does not develop much further or gets injured but then that is reflected in the price. If a deal was for Christie to go now, then we should be looking at a 7 figure sum. In very simplistic terms, we would, in effect be paying half a million for his services this season if this deal goes through. He is good but he's not that good and we need to have a guarantee of benefit from his future career to compensate for his knockdown price.

The whole striker situation is rather concerning. We lost Billy in January and knew we would be losing Marley at the end of last season, so there has been plenty of time to seek replacements. A few weeks ago Yogi said that by having signed Lopez and Mutombo our signings for front men was completed. No sooner was he saying that than suddenly we are in panic mode begging the Chairman to release funding to sign a much needed striker. The transfer window will be shutting soon and whilst teams around us seem to be able to make decent signings, we are still searching. I dread to think what this must be doing to the confidence of the strikers he has signed. We can talk about our very serious injury crisis but the injury crisis actually has relatively little bearing on our failure to score goals. Yogi said that Mutombo could play anywhere along the front line, so presumably he considers him as a striker when need be: he is not injured. Lopez may have picked up a slight injury against Hamilton but nothing that will keep him out for long, and Ferguson and Sutherland were on the bench at the weekend and so were presumably fit. So why the last minute panic to sign a striker? The fact is that Yogi has signed Lopez and Mutombo this season and has given contracts to the youngsters but yet seems to have no real faith in them. Needing to chase the game against Hamilton and not putting either of the youngsters on when Lopez had to come off seems, on the face of it, to be an extraordinary statement of lack of confidence in them. If Yogi now feels the players he has signed are not good enough then one has to question why he signed them.

Really gutted to learn of Doran's injury. He's been one of the most creative players we have had in the club in the last few years and has scored a decent number of goals. He is also very good at pulling defenders out of position and creating space for team mates. It is all very well looking for a striker but you need to have players who can create the chances for the strikers in the first place. He is going to be a huge miss for us.

An excellent post Alex - apart from the 1st half of the 2nd paragraph! I'm not sure how you can assert that a policy for a further referendum is not in the manifesto when, to the best of my knowledge, the manifesto has yet to be written! I feel fairly sure that if it was written and was public knowledge, it would be a major news story. The other point I would take issue with is that if it is the case that the SNP leadership have no intention of calling for another referendum unless public opinion demands it, then they are demonstrating a serious lack of leadership. They would be following and not leading. Leadership in this situation requires the first minister and her senior colleagues to explain to those supporters of independence clamoring for a re-run, why a second referendum just a few years after last year's is simply not appropriate. The First Minister has made a number of deliberately ambiguous statements around this issue and has singularly failed either to re-affirm earlier comments that a referendum should be a once in a generation event or even to rule it out of next year's manifesto. One can see the strategy here a mile off. It will be in the manifesto, but she will say it was not her intention to call one so soon but the public demand was such etc etc. In other words, she will try to put some principled position spin onto her bare faced opportunism. The reason why some of us keep banging on about a 2nd referendum is because it still so clearly very much on the agenda of the SNP. And until the SNP leadership actually demonstrate some leadership and take it off the agenda, I for one will keep on banging on about it.

Slightly off topic but in my childhood home town there was a butchers which rejoiced in the appealing name of "Badham and Grizzell". I've just looked them up and remarkably, over 40 years later they are still in business at the same premises!

HT 0-0 FT 2-1 ICT Lopez Opp Kurtaj Time 52

Rory McAllister scoring all 5 for Peterhead in their 5-3 win away at Falkirk in the Petrofac cup. Wow!

You are either being very thick or very naughty. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and to paraphrase Monty Python, say "she's been a very naughty girl!" I am sure you are well aware that the generally accepted definition of a generation in the context of "once in a generation" is the average span of time between the births of an individual and their offspring. No qualification is needed unless you specifically mean something else. There is no doubt that prior to the referendum, the leadership of the SNP recognised that a referendum on such a major constitutional change should be held no more frequently than every 20 or 30 years. Equally there is no doubt they still recognise the truth in that. The question is, will they behave in a principled way or will they abandon their principles and submit to blind opportunism? I know which my money is on.

More complete nonsense from Oddquine and more suggesting someone who holds different views to her says or means something completely different from what they actually said or meant. Is there anyone who genuinely thinks Salmond (and the current FM, by the way!) meant anything other than approximately 20 - 30 years for a generation? Indeed one or both of the FMs used the phrase "once in a generation or maybe a lifetime" or words to that effect. 5 years is an electoral term and not a political generation. I doubt that any politician has ever thought of 5 years as being a political generation. You then cover your back and say that the generation thing is of no consequenceanyway because it was said by Salmond and was not party policy! The implication of this is that we can simply ignore anything the First Minister says unless it is enshrined in the party manifesto! Perhaps the only people who should make statements on behalf of the SNP are those on their policy committee with any statement cross referenced to the appropriate policy! What you fail to acknowledge is that both Salmond and Sturgeon referred to the referendum as a once in a generation thing because they accepted that it is the reality of the political nature of these things. It was said in the hope that the fact that it is a once in a generation thing would encourage people to grasp the opportunity whilst they could. A decision for Scotland to become Independent would be irrevocable. You can't just change back in 5 years time if the people decided they had made a mistake. That is why the once in a generation thing is such an important concept. In the history of our democracy it is literally only in the last few months that a majority of the population have indicated a preference for independence and we cannot know how people will feel in the future. If we remain in the UK we may well find that a majority drift back to the view that Scotland is better as part of the wider UK. Or if we become Independent it may be that people regret that decision and no longer want to be independent - but by then it will be too late. It would be a complete betrayal of the people of Scotland to commit us to a long term future as an independent nation simply because a majority voted for it at a point in our history when a variety of factors briefly conspired to make independence look attractive. If we are to become an independent nation it should be on the basis of consistent support for independence by a majority of the people over a number of years. It is not something you can change and it is not something you should go into on a whim. Nicola Sturgeon is well aware of the truth of this but faces a dilemma. She knows she could give way to the mob, have another referendum and possibly go down in history as the person who took Scotland into independence and became the first Scottish Prime Minister. Alternatively she knows she should do the responsible thing and honour the earlier statements about the previous referendum being a once in a generation thing. Doing that would allow the Scottish Government to use the fiscal and other powers devolved to them and demonstrate to the Scottish people that the more responsibility the Scottish people have for their own affairs, the better off the people are. If the support for independence was maintained then a date for a referendum could be set well in advance with clear statements agreed about how an independent nation would function. In that way we would know what we were voting for and if we did vote for independence, we would know it reflected a long term view of the electorate. That's how the democratic process should work. You refer to the 44.7% who voted "Yes" but not to the 55.3% who voted "No". It is high time the First Minister took note of that figure and accepted that a majority voted to stay in the Union. It is high time for the First Minister to repeat her earlier statement that a referendum should be no more than a once in generation thing and confirmed that there will be no further referendum whilst she is first minister (although I would accept that the UK voting to leave the EU and a significant majority of Scots voting to stay in might well justify one). The First Minister needs to start using the powers available to her to govern Scotland better than the SNP are currently doing instead of blaming everything on the hated Tories. If the SNP could stop being so depressingly negative about everything then Scotland might move forward. And in a generation we might have another referendum in which the argument for independence was based on the record of a Scottish Government in improving the lot of the Scottish people when it has fiscal autonomy. This would be far more preferable and meaningful than the appalling campaign of lies and false promises we had to endure last year.

So what you are saying, DD is that it doesn't really matter what the majority of Labour Party members want. Democracy, Labour style, isn't really democracy unless the majority of Labour MPs want the result the people choose as well, as if the MPs are not simply Party members like Joe Public. You are saying that a couple of hundred or so MPs, arguing a case predicated solely on getting into power and holding onto their jobs, should have more say than a couple of hundred thousand Party members and supporters who would prefer that the party represents all of them and not just the careers of the MPs. It appears you are another who thinks the only purpose of politics is to govern, and not to oppose or amend. There seems to me to be a real dichotomy there, in a situation in which it appears to be perceived, by the average Labour punter, that the only difference between the policies of our two Buggin's turn Governments is one of method and not one of ideology. This perception has been confirmed regularly since 1997, and is still being underlined by the Labour abstention propensity, even when the abstentions mean they refuse to vote against Bills/clauses in Bills which damage the people who vote for them, or used to vote for them, along with everybody else.....like the Bedroom Tax, the moratorium on fracking, the Welfare Reform and Work Bill etc. With the best will in the world, the only job in Westminster of the Buggin's turn party, when not in Government, is to oppose anything which conflicts with the principles/manifesto commitments on which they were elected, but since 2010, the Labour Party has even failed at that, perhaps because it has pretty much agreed with everything the Government was and is doing. It doesn't really matter, imo, if that opposition does not stop a bill or change a clause, they have to be seen to be standing up for their principles....or they are not being seen to be doing the job they are paid to do. And that, more than anything, is why, in Scotland, there is simply no other party which has the credibility with the electorate to get the electorate to either understand that or vote for an alternative manifesto......because there is no other Unionist party which has an alternative manifesto, in Scotland or in the rest of the UK, and haven't had since 1979, because they are all of one mind...the need to get elected in swing seats in the South of England. If Corbyn doesn't get elected, there won't be any alternative manifesto.........you know it and I know it....... there will just be small variations on the theme of trashing those on benefits, whether working or not, to impose austerity on those who have no voice any more, enriching those who are already well-off and growing the poverty gap..... because Labour has gone over to the dark side to try to persuade the Southern electorate that they are not so different from the Tories really and safe hands to continue to meet their middle class aspirations and prejudices. As Margaret Thatcher is meant to have said, DD, her greatest legacy was the Labour Party of Tony Blair, the party which was in power as long as she was and made no effort to repair the damage she did, but simply applied more Germolene and sticking plasters to the wounds she inflicted.It is now reaping what it has spent the last twenty years sowing. For goodness sake! What utter nonsense! Oddquine, if you are going to attempt to respond to what other people say, please afford them the courtesy of responding to what they actually said and not what you would have liked them to have said in order to justify the nonsense you then come out with. How on earth do you deduce from my post that I think it doesn't matter what the majority of labour party members want? Of course it matters - they elect the leader! And no, I did not say that the MPs should have more say than the party members. In fact, I made absolutely no comment on how labour should conduct its business! I simply expressed the view that electing Corbyn as leader will make Labour less credible with the electorate and that it will be interesting to see how the likely election of new leader, whose views are to the left of the majority of the MPs will affect the parliamentary performance of labour MPs. I would have thought that even you might agree with that! You mention party members but it is the electorate who MPs represent. Surely it is more important for Labour MPs to represent their constituents than a massive influx of new members from the left wing who joined the party after the election for the sole purpose of getting a left wing leader who believes in policies different from those which got the MPs elected in the first place. You then can't help yourself but to repeat the tired old lie about there being no difference between Labour and the Conservatives. You know as well as I do that this is a electoral gimmick of the SNP. First of all they demonising the Tories so that every policy they come up with must be pure evil designed to subjugate the poor (and especially the Scottish poor). Then this nonsense about there being no difference between Labour and the Tories so that Labour will be hated too. Red Tories, Blue Tories - pathetic! Anyone with half a brain knows it's nonsense and the practical politics of the SNP shows it up for the nonsense it is. Sturgeon was more than happy to do a deal with Labour to keep the hated Tories out of power . No difference? Yeah, right! Your black and white view of politics is further illustrated with your simplistic view of the role of the "opposition" parties. Just because we have terms like "opposition benches" and "leader of the opposition" doesn't mean the role of the parties not in government is simply to oppose. Legislation is passed by parliament and not by the governing party. MPs are elected to serve their electorate (all of it) in contributing to the sound governance of our country. MPs best serve their electorate when they don't waste time bleating on over points of principle in obstructing legislation which is going to be passed in any case, but instead, spend time constructively helping to shape the detail of bills in areas where some consensus is likely. Good MPs, like good members of any committee know that results are achieved when people are pragmatic and seek consensus by making compromises. In terms of credible alternatives to the SNP in Scotland I would argue that Labour look increasingly non-credible as the leadership and membership in the UK party lurch to the left. Both the Lib Dems and the Tories have credible manifestos but they and Scottish Labour all need to be more effective in overcoming the appeal to short term self interest the SNP offer the electorate if they are to gain more seats. Dugdale has it right when she says the SNP's focus is the Scottish Nation whilst the focus of Scottish Labour is the Scottish People. In that at least, Labour is aligned with the other Unionist parties.

Just seen the highlights and struck by how poor our defending was for their goals. On the plus side, it was a nicely taken goal from Lopez having initially won the ball and then got into position to get the ball back in the danger area. Hopefully that will give him a bit of confidence and he can start knocking them in in front of the home fans. What strikes me though is that whilst we have done well prior to the Celtic game to concede so few goals without Warren and Meekings, we are decidedly vulnerable at the back and are inevitably going to ship a few goals. Unless we play with a more positive attacking intent then we are going to lose a lot of games. If Saturday showed us anything, it was that we do have players who can score, given the opportunity. Forget about clean sheets, lets just focus on scoring more goals than our opponents do.

The SNP's objective of winning even more seats in Holyrood is undoubtedly made much easier by the way Labour have simply self destructed. To have any chance of success in Scotland, the Labour Party must be strong and credible in the UK as a whole. But it has lost a lot of strength and credibility and looks like it will lose a whole lot more by electing Corbyn as their leader. Regardless of whether you agree with his policies or not, the fact is that the majority of the parliamentary party do not want him as their leader and are fundamentally opposed to some of the policies which Corbyn wishes to introduce. It will be interesting but probably thoroughly depressing to see how this will translate into the performance of Labour MPs at Westminster. A lurch to the left will mean they become even more un-electable South of the Border and the Tories' success at the next Westminster election is all but guaranteed. Assuming Corbyn is elected, there will also be precious little common ground between Corbyn and Dugdale which will further damage Dugdale's credibility. All of this suits the SNP down to the ground. Until Labour are a credible united force again or unless something remarkable happens to vastly improve the popularity of the Tories or Lib Dems, there will be no meaningful challenge to the SNP in Scotland. The SNP may be regressive, centralist and incompetent but there is simply no other party which has the credibility with the electorate to get the electorate to either understand that or vote for an alternative manifesto.

HT 1-1 FT 3-1 ICT Lopez Celtic Commons Time 19 mins

I'm sure that learning his craft here and emerging as a key player in the first team has been good for Christie's development, but to be honest, I don't see that he is going to develop a lot more here. He works his socks off most of the time but all too often there is such a lack of movement in front of him that he is forced to play safe balls square or backwards with the result that he creates relatively little end product. You can see the frustration at times. I think he has reached the stage where he needs to move in order to develop. He needs to move to a team with a more attack minded philosophy with players in front of him who can pull defenders out of position and create the spaces for the incisive passes he is capable of delivering. I can see the attraction of offering him a 2 or 3 year deal on a much higher salary in the hope that it leads to a significantly higher bid in a couple of years time, but there are a couple of huge risks in that. Firstly, with our limited resources, paying him significantly more means there is correspondingly less for others. He needs good players round him to bring out the best in him and we will not attract and retain good players if we can't afford the wages. Secondly, he may get injured or simply fail to fulfill his potential. If that happens then we keep paying a high wage for an asset who is not actually worth too much. Personally I think the best option for him and the club would be for us to cash in whilst we can and get a realistic (7 figure) price for him in this transfer window. With Vincent, Doran and Roberts all due to return from injury, with Williams potentially available for midfield duties on Tremarco's return from injury, plus the re-signing of Vigurs, we have a lot of decent players in midfield. Where we have a problem is up front. With £1m+ in the bank we have the opportunity of attracting a better striker. We also have far too many players on contracts which expire at the end of the season and this would also give us the opportunity to offer a little more to players the manager is keen to keep. In selling Ryan, a loan clause would be an option but not an important one as far as I'm concerned. What would be far more important is to get some clause for a cut in any future sale of the player. Yes, we would miss him if he went but personally I think the benefit of the major cash boost would more than compensate for that. He is now at the stage where he will develop more without us, and with the cash boost his sale might generate I think the club would develop more without him. It's time for him to move on with our very best wishes for his future.

"Not getting too despondent yet and I think once we get Dorran, Vincent and Roberts back things will change." This seems to be a commonly held view but in a way it illustrates just why some people are quite concerned at the moment. Last season Doran started just 15 league games and Vincent 13. That's about 1 in 3 matches for both of them and yet now suddenly we're hanging onto a hope that when they return, our attacking play will suddenly step up a gear or two. But we did OK without them in the starting XI lest season, so why are we looking so bereft of ideas up front without them this season. Getting Tremarco back and releasing Williams into the midfield will help but I really don't think you can pin our lacking of effectiveness upfront this season down to our injury "crisis"

We tend to well against Celtic because they adopt the attitude that they are better than anyone else and focus on simply playing their way. They come at other teams and that creates space for teams to exploit - if they are good enough. This takes us back to John Collins and comments about how Celtic need to play deeper against European opposition. The point here is that we can expect there will be space to exploit when we get the ball. The defence for Lopez has been to some extent that playing against teams that sit deep makes it hard for our front men to find space and for the midfield to get the ball through to them when they do. Against Celtic, the problem is getting the ball in the first place, but when you do, there is always space to exploit. If our creative midfielders can be given the role of being "cutting and dynamic" then there should be opportunities for Lopez to show what he can do. I therefore hope that Lopez is given the opportunity to start on Saturday as it may just be the opportunity he needs to show the fans why Yogi has put his trust in him. I sincerely hope he comes good but if not, then it will be time for a change against Hamilton.

28% meat and 2.5% Buckfast! What about the other 69.5%?!!! Talc

Does this include training sessions?

Yes. A game of football actually broke out. And the crowd responded. I even got a little bit excited for a while!