SpoonTon

That means nothing in itself. There were a few players who rejected us and dropped a league to go to Falkirk. Ross County will be paying more money than we will.

Yeah, he never looked close to it but I remember Shankland looking like a really good striker in a game against us for St Mirren - scored a cracking goal down towards the away end at their ground. But you can't play to your potential if the fitness and motivation isn't there, and that applies to many players. Some manage to recapture it, many don't. If a player had a problem with his attitude, application or fitness and has improved that, then it's very possible for him to move back up a level or two.

I hadn't been sure what his coaching role actually was, or that it was an essential role. Gary Woods was brought in for that type of dual role, which didn't totally work out but made some sense. I think O'Halloran has been given an extension primarily because Murray rates him as a player and thinks he can challenge for a place in the starting 11. Just like when Imrie put him straight into the team when he signed last year, and just like he did all season when fit. Considering his injuries, he played a bigger role than a player just here to pad out the squad or act as a backup and I assume that'll continue into next season. I don't he's here as a cheap or convenient option - I think he's here cause Murray rates him as a player.

Yeah, obviously. And obviously Murray rates him more highly than I do. I wouldn't have re-signed the guy who was behind Moffat, Shaw, and Garrity in the pecking order (who are all also much better off the bench than starting). I don't know if that means that Murray also rates those 3 more highly than I do. I think we can do better. But then again, I don't have all the information regard financial decisions around this, and I sincerely hope Murray is right and O'Halloran will be a decent asset for us next season.

Obviously, from the context, I mean sign as new players or have sign extensions (as announced today with O'Halloran). In this situation, I mean I'm wary about giving a player a new deal who wasn't good enough to get anything like a regular starting place for a team which scraped 8th place. I'd be more comfortable giving new deals to the best players in the squad and then try to improve on that base.

I get how that might work to put advantage if he's covering a necessary coaching position and the club think he's a worthwhile player and a good coach. One staff member covering two job roles can be less expensive overall than two staff members - and sometimes the relevant skills for nicely. But is the assumption sometimes more like: "while you're here, can you work two jobs for the price of one?" Surely he's potentially a higher earner but giving us better value overall?

Where's the idea that O'Halloran will be a low earner coming from, btw?

Going to be honest. No idea how you leapt to this conclusion. Obviously wasn't what I meant.

I'm not really a fan. You can see the skill, ability, and bit of pace that's still there but I'm not at all sure what that adds up to anymore. He's not good enough to start matches. He's had some decent moments off the bench, but overall we're too weak with him in the team. We only won one game with him starting, which certainly isn't the be all and end all, but I'm not sure what position he's actually going to be solid enough in and I'm not sure that signing players for the bench is the best place to start. Symptomatic of Murray's neat football going forward while being defensively weak.

Without trying to defend McGrattan or trying to say that Imrie made the wrong decision, it depends on who you count as his replacement. The record of signings in that type of role has been pretty sketchy in the last couple of years.

Strapp was Airdrie's player of the year. There are limitations to his game which have stopped him going up a level, but he's as good a left back as we (and I mean Morton in particular) are going to find at this level.

Given that we'll be cutting the budget significantly from last season, there were always a number of players who were going to be unaffordable. That probably cuts a few from the squad before we even start (MacPherson, Lyall, and Shaw were all signings made possible by the bigger budget last year). Then there are those like Moffat and Blues who have been rumoured to be already headed elsewhere. In that scenario, you could understand if we haven't made many offers. If there's any truth in it, I doubt it would be as simple as Murray not wanting to keep any of the squad (we re-signed Longridge, after all - unless he had an extension triggered on his deal that we didn't know about). I do imagine there's a tough job balancing a restricted budget with some of the better players having options elsewhere.

I got the impression from his post match interview on Friday that he was keen on remaining with us. I mean, you've got to think he would be, what other full time club is there in Scotland if you're getting released by Ayr in that manner?

At the moment I'm probably more worried about who we'll lose this summer. We've been losing our best players ever year and it puts us on the back foot. If Wilson and Blues leave then that's pretty much the rest of Imrie's best team gone, and we've had a real struggle trying to replace the players from that team. Ever year the list of players we'd most like to keep ends up being the list of the most likely players to leave.

I'm assuming Brophy's contract is one of those funded by Dalrada. I'm guessing that means it wouldn't free up any funds to move him on.