Handsome_Devil

To be fair...they were the ones who put out such woolly wording basically inviting people to listen to any offers. So I'd be surprised if they're too disappointed. What concerns me most is that: 1) we're now going to spend time dealing with people who want to take control rather than be a partner. That's just the wrong priority. 2) our negotiating position to outsiders is weakened as it's now much harder to say to potential investors you need to take a back seat. They will quite rightly ask why when the fans said they're open to it. 3) if the proposal to give up control is rejected, what have we sacrificed in the meantime with no CEO, direction etc. So while I do understand the result to an extent...not great.

Ah fair enough then. For whatever reason there's an aura about some players that definitely impacts the perception of them and how the crowd reacts. Even when he was playing well last season, Butcher was good for one howling error in most games - but it came out the blue and when he's otherwise solid it's easy to give him the benefit of the doubt. Especially when he made a largely winning start. Bevis on the other hand might make the same one howler a game but everyone goes to the guy next to them 'that's been coming'. Whether it's confidence , technique (lack of, in both cases), I've no idea but it's definitely something. A slow start and being pitched in to the collapse of the Robinson reign obviously didn't help first impressions either.

I'd probably take that deal if possible tbh, my thoughts so far had only been on those ooc. Because as much as you can make a case for most individually, renewing all of them and having basically the same unit that's a disaster isn't viable. That's one of these comments that makes me wonder if I'm reading the same forum... has there not been near universal consensus Casey has been shite this season? I think the debate around the four is obviously just more intense because when ooc they're the easier parts to change. If Mugabi has to go despite being better than Blaney (definitely) and Casey (if only on form) to make space for the upgrade we all agree we need because he can be moved on and the others can't, that's just the harsh reality of things on our budget.

I think so too...he showed when he came in the wasn't afraid to exile folk but while SOD understandably lost out to Johnston, he came off the bench for weeks. I'd also be offering Slattery another couple of years...it'd surely be hard for him to sign elsewhere before fully recovered.

On a similar-ish topic, my idle mind was wandering to all those strikers we failed to get in January and while there's plenty of time for them to come good/get fit/have been unlucky etc we don't appear to have missed out on much yet. Stewart, KVV, Main and the Sunderland Guy at Hibs haven't scored yet and while Nouble got two in the cup but little in the league since deadline day. Doidge might be playing brilliantly but has one in six at Forest Green. May is still bit-part at St J and Brophy, in from the cold at county, is arguably the only one in any form.

Interesting... I'd say Bevis is a walking liability and even on his good days an error is never far away. SOD has improved again out wide but I like the fact he can play rcb too...we need two out of the back three to be able to pass if that's going to work and finding those guys at the level is hard.

I'm to and fro on who I'd bin from our defence...I'd definitely not renew Butcher and as likeable as he is I'd punt Bevis. I'd tend to keep McGinn, despite his recent wobble, and would renew SOD if he takes lower terms.

Now that leading them to Europe is gone, I imagine he'll chuck it (mentally if not literally, how would you tell ho ho etc) if they lose in the cup. He's certainly not going to go if he's only a couple of games from a major final even if it unlikely. I still find it hard to believe Aberdeen won't scramble the points to be comfortably safe eventually but with each passing game you just begin to wonder.

There's no doubt changes he's made - whether enforced or epiphanies - have helped win folk round regardless of results - which while back to ok-ish are still far from amazing. The utter refusal to play a left-footed lwb for months, use the six he himself had signed, having no idea how to use Wilkinson who he signed etc suggested fundamental problems rather than short-term quirks. Had we scrambled a draw at St Mirren and beat Livingston without addressing those, the potential redemption arc would not be swinging nearly so much.

That's obviously stinking but ultimately it's a totally arbitrary number to base the judgement on. It's worth no more than cherry-picking the recent record and saying we barely lose outwith the OF aren't we great. What I think it does definitely highlight though is the fact we are, in principle, desperate not to sack anyone until we have no choice. Which is based less on results but more attitude of the squad. Hammell survived till the players chucked it, so did Alexander basically, downing tools and a dressing room barny at Morton did for Baraclough, Robinson and McCall volunteered to go (having previously been talked out of it) and in between McGhee went due to the 7-2/1-5 losses (which pre-MFCTV I didn't see but you need to imagine there was some withdrawal of labour to explain those). Over many years, we generally much say that so long as the players are on board, the devil we know is better than an expensive gamble that may not work out. Which when you look around elsewhere, is pretty hard to argue with.

Financially it'd be amazing to make the top six but given we won't have a prayer of fifth, it'd be much more enjoyable sporting-wise to to take seven points from the next five and chase seventh. The bottom six, when you're safe with a semi-entertaining team, is great.

This is one of the points that made me flip on him once we backed him...if we have a 17-year-old breaking into the team, literally everyone would expect him to be up and down, make mistakes, have poor spells etc but learn from them as part of the process. Is the manager fundamentally any different? We've seen for a fact all around the league that changing manager all the time has little positive impact. If we're trying to be different and find an edge, why not try letting a manager learn and develop for three-five years? There's a potential big reward and little risk - with the caveat the players back him through rough spells, as they visibly did in this case.

Casey was shit there but it is notable that Miller's needless giveaway has barely been acknowledged...that one wasn't a one-man show by any means. Also interesting that Kettlewell, unprompted, sung his praises individually again post-match. You wonder if the decision has been made that summer is the best time to cash in risk/reward wise. He's fresh, playing well, two years on his contract...he might be even better next season but if he hits a slump (not unexpected in the development of a youth ofc) before sales time and has only one year left, his value could be less...

It's certainly looking better than it was...but I'd say that signing two guys always injured was a stupid waste of resources and while it's great to see projects work out, if you say Davor, Bair and Gent only got going from mid-December, our being dismal without them early is what got us stuck firmly in a relegation battle. I'm hopeful he'll do better for sure and certainly when you see guys develop there's more reason to think he will...but essentially, if we're in a relegation battle come November and five more folk have contributed f**k all to that point, I think he'll be in bother.

January is an odd one. He did much better, for sure, but then he generally signed more established folk. Devine was young obviously but you know what we'd get from Halliday and Nicholson, Vale has his Championship games behind him, we'd seen Montgomery etc. That's great but not necessarily the market we'll be in again in summer... he urgently needs to improve his success rate among 'punts'. As for the defence, it is a remarkable quirk that we've got so many (converted) CBs that SK hasn't signed one for us yet. The rumour we've gone for that Livingston boy does not install confidence.

One can only hope!

I really like Vale and like Gent would keep him if we can. He's under contract for another year though so doubtful. What I think will hold him back is that there are very few positions you would trust him in with modern formations. You wouldn't play him as a solo nine, he's not a winger...an old inside forward in a lopsided 4-3-3? Maybe. Not a 10. And what we've seen with various folk recently is forwards who can only play in a two have a low ceiling. But for us in our *gestures* 'that' he has quite a natural berth as a 'something' between the midfield and Bair though even then I'd still say for the moment he's better of the bench.

Excellent second half, balls and quality on display in equal measure. Thoroughly deserved win in the end. The first half was not as bad as some on here claimed, though I appreciate a meh 45 after booting it into your own net is hard to defend. But the tide had been turned before the break and adding Vale up top basically meant Livingston couldn't cope with us. Fair play to SK, he rarely gets these things right but spot on there... though Vale made such a difference you can actually ask why he didn't start Virtually everyone would have taken four points from the last four and we have a gap to the bottom two and a free hit on Saturday. Had we not blown the cup...but anyway, spilt milk under the bridge, we have a shot to nothing on Saturday and then a breather before four games which give us the chance to approach safety pre-split. Crisis, what crisis?

I'd assume they're injured...but if not, it's possible he looked at a good performance v county followed by shite in Morton and decided a couple of fresh legs needed this time. Tbh as grim a watch as it's been, we've not been massively worse than them. But when you combine for two hideous errors to gift the lead as we did, being only on par for the rest of an attritional half doesn't really cut it.

Kelly is well behind Casey and miller in the blame game there. It sums up our season, a nothing game where we utterly shoot ourselves in the foot. We weren't even under pressure there.

Sure but there's a world of difference between not being self-sustaining with a benefactor or an investor looking for a return. You could probably knock this into a nice flow chart somehow but obviously this means taking money out the club on a regular basis or the overall value of the club rising so they can sell at a profit (to someone who thinks it'll make them money from the square one options above). If they're aiming for dividends, it's wildly optimistic to think anyone will transform the model we already have selling folk beyond it's current cyclical nature and total fantasy to think they'll establish us at a 'higher level' because the prize money in no way matches the cash needed. Alternatively they increase revenues off the pitch. This is possible but do we seriously think an outsider will be able to do so that much better than us, ie to take out hundreds of thousands on top of the hundreds of thousands needed to bridge the funding gap? I don't. If they're aiming for growth, they need to hope/ensure we're one of all the boats lifted by a rising tide - a change in Scotland's football structure, television/media rights, expanded Euro competitions etc. But this has little to do with them really... should this happen, would we be happy to be in this situation again with limited control over the next owner in exchange for a few hundred grand a year to bridge a gap we have so far done ourselves despite the Society phoning it in? Nah. I appreciate everyone loves to dream about riches but as soon as you start asking not what we get and they're willing to pay but what they get and we're willing to pay, it suddenly becomes very unappealing (at least for me!). And that's before we consider the risks of what happens if it all goes wrong. So sure, if we find someone with more money than sense who wants to buy our US media rights or someone who'll take a slice of the transfer profits in exchange for being able to invest in slightly better gambles then great, go for it. But the more I think about it, the more ridiculous I find the whole idea and conclude we're much better upping the game in the Society and taking some calculated investment risks of our own.

Just guessing but I suspect that's less a problem than a feature. You can't have a concrete yes/no on anything without knowing the details and you're not going to know the details until the very end. Even while the no to giving up control had stronger wording, there'll be people in that group who will have exceptions - ceding control to a proven benevolent dictator like Hutchinson or Boyle (for example - they're clearly not interested), or another local boy made good may see some red lines turn pink in comparison to giving ownership to a random from the other side of the world. And tbh any potential who walks because they see a robust, organised and bolshy fan group as a concern rather than an asset... cheerio.

No idea, it was suggested by Livi guys on deadline day he'd signed for us.

Isn't Obileye the guy supposedly on a PCA with us? Will he definitely play?

I think it'll be close...the wording of the question basically said we know you think that but go on, just have a wee peak at what's in box B and you can always change your mind later...