dunning1874

That feels like an alarm bell that we're not signing another goalkeeper after all, unless it's poorly worded and they mean that he's only being recalled on an emergency basis while we've only got one signed (you're allowed to do that with keepers).

Murray explicitly says there "The plan is to continue working with him and, hopefully, get him out on loan to play regular first-team football" so maybe it's taking a miniscule sum out of the budget once they get his wage covered; oddly more okay with that than I would be signing him to be part of the first team immediately, because central midfield is now the last place we need signings.

While you could theoretically have Ballantyne move across to left back, it wouldn't make any sense for Murray to say we're not in a position to sign another left sided defender due to needing to prioritise other areas of rhe squad, then sign a player who can only play right back and nowhere else and would obviously command a proper first team wage rather than being a cheap youngster, when we already have a better right back who's not as good when he switches to left back. While we do need cover at right back that doesn't involve removing Wilson from the midfield or hoping Gillespie gets by there, that would seem like a waste of resources.

Was it actually a 4-3-3 like this with all three properly playing in central midfield and Cochrane going box to box, or was it more like the 4-2-3-1 with Cochrane up with Garrity & McLuckie? I know it's possible to get too caught up in the formation and there might not be a huge difference between the two anyway, but interested to see if we're actually going to have some tweaks now it's Murray's own squad rather than rigidly sticking with one shape no matter what.

McHugh and Baird had both been at Falkirk in 16/17, we signed McHugh in the summer of 17 then Baird on loan from Inverness in February 18. We did play Falkirk away with them as a front two (a Duffy classic, 3-0 down at half-time and didn't make a single sub in the game). Other players with Falkirk connections we signed that summer were Luca Gasparotto (signed from them) and Darren Barr, but no strikers.

No argument from me about Longridge. I'd missed this in the Tele so went back and had a look. 23rd June had the following comments on Delaney and MacPherson: It is a weird thing for Murray to say, because it's not like we didn't make Delaney an offer. He says we couldn't economically justify it, what if he'd accepted what we offered then? Was the offer on massively reduced terms that would be more befitting for a young ringer than a guy who was first choice for the last two years, which we never expected him to accept anyway? In tandem with that you'd assume this being said 12 days ago means that we have now moved on from MacPherson and accepted that's definitely not happening now as those comments predate signing both Cochrane & Sandilands. Adding another central midfielder in MacPherson to the currently signed options while saying we can't afford to sign another starting left sided defender whether at centre back or left back would be approaching Hopkin levels of wildly imbalanced squad building, so presumably that's us finished in midfield. I note that in another article he's also said that Fairnie can play centre back or left back, so maybe he sees that as his two options. We're going to have to hope whatever young loanee we get to pad out the defence (and we still have no right back cover beyond moving Wilson or Gillespie back so we could really do with someone who can cover there) turns out to be a gem.

10 league goals from midfield as a 20 year old is very impressive. Wonder how he's planned to be used though, an alternative to Savoury, Savoury being used out wide instead, or (perish the thought) not playing 4-2-3-1 at all? Surely Wilson and Cochrane are pretty much guaranteed names on the teamsheet and it's not going to be a case of Sandilands in beside Cochrane with Wilson in defence again...

Dunfermline's loss was spending on jobbers, yes. Even in their League One season they lost £1M, seeing what the loss increased to last season now they have the entirely legitimate cryptobro throwing money around will be interesting. For us, worth noting that £40K loss came on the back of two profits and Dale Pryde-McDonald said at the start of that season we were budgeting a loss to allow Imrie an increased budget. Would be very interested to see what last season ended up with considering all the issues in the summer followed by ultimately having an increased budget only to end up finishing 8th.

Even the power of Christ couldn't compel Declan Gallagher to look like a competent footballer at this point. Fine with having a look at Carse, think he's a creative central midfielder but leaning more towards the deep lying playmaker variety than an alternative to Savoury. No problem having that option in that squad as long as it doesn't end up with a defensively weak midfield, which shouldn't be the case with Wilson & Cochrane signed up.

For first choices I think a keeper and left back are definite as you say, with another winger a maybe (not saying that's what I'd necessarily want but what I think Murray may do). Unsure about the striker, we'll obviously be adding one and I think it needs to be a strong option with Brophy's injury history rather than a complete punt of a teenage loan or unheard of guy from the English non-leagues, but fear that'll be what we end up with rather than genuine competition to be first choice. If so that gamble of a signing can't go wrong or we'd be in serious bother. With a keeper, left back and striker taking us to 17, I think we'll have another defender as cover, ideally someone who can cover right back and centre back meaning we don't need to end up with Wilson or Gillespie moving back to either position. Then if we're going to end up with 19 or 20 versatility could be useful. We know from experience that 'anywhere across the front three' often means 'not good enough in any position to make one their own' but I'm not sure McLuckie should or has been brought in with being straight into the starting XI in mind, and someone who can play through the middle too could give us another alternative to Brophy. You'd think we're maybe done for midfielders, but to varying degrees Wilson, Cochrane, Gillespie and Savoury have all had some injury problems so I could see the sense in another if we end up with a coop agreement, although maybe that's the cover Murphy will provide if he's considered part of the first team.

That option wasn't a Parma style kit, it was an Alloa top.

I wouldn't have thought Otoo was realistic for us as I'd have expected some bigger spenders in the division to be after him, Dunfermline releasing him seemed to be more down to a rumoured personality clash with Lennon and having one injury hit season rather than ability, but that would be terrific if possible and especially so with Cochrane in as well. I'd have had Otoo as good enough to come in and start either beside Wilson in the two or at left back, while being solid cover for centre back too. That versatility is why I could still see him as an appealing option for other clubs. If we did end up with Otoo & Cochrane it makes us look a good bit more formidable. A hypothetical back four of Ballantyne, Moore, Longridge and Otoo with Wilson & Cochrane in front looks to me like it'd actually be an upgrade on last season defensively despite not being a Longridge fan. Would be some laugh when Murray takes those options and goes with Otoo & Cochrane in midfield and Longridge at left back so he can play Wilson at centre back.

I'd be chuffed with Cochrane. With the way we've seen the 4-2-3-1 function so far and the players signed up for the three, I think we'll need two energetic players who can both cover a lot ground defensively in the two instead of Wilson's partner being someone in the MacPherson or Lyall mould as a deep lying playmaker. A bit of an all rounder who's comfortable enough in possession to take the ball from the defence but also covers that defensive ground would be excellent and I think Cochrane fits that mould as well as anyone we're likely to get.

As ever with a player you've never heard of coming from that level, he could realistically be a hidden gem who'll be fantastic or a contender for the worst player you've ever seen. No point guessing which.

Without knowing the details of what's happened, regardless it's a real shame that an issue with one member can bring things to this point. The articles were designed specifically to stop that happening, it's why there needs to be a minimum number of members putting their names to a vote of no confidence, need to meet a quorum at an AGM/EGM etc, so individual agendas and vendettas (if that's what this is about) can't derail the organisation. If a member chooses to take a route outside the organisation rather than addressing their problems within it then there's sadly little board members can do about that.