I don't accept this. In the cases of Davidson and Dyer, the players (particularly Davidson) did much better for us than some were ever willing to give them credit for. Of the others you name, all of whom have only just left - Watson was generally rated, I think most of us would have been happy enough for him to stay. Ditto Conroy, though I'm not sure how he's going to turn out from here anyway. Nade is a different case, in that he's clearly got the ability if he can ever string his good games together - which may depend on injury and fitness. Maybe Hamilton are in a better position to take a gamble on that than a Championship side with a smaller squad.
Of course there are always instances of players doing better at one club than another for all sorts of reasons, and sometimes that works for us and sometimes against. (Rob Sloan and Dougie Hill both came to us having been released by Alloa.) But if you're suggesting that there's some pattern to it that we generally seem to come off worse from then that's nonsense. I think there are fans at every club who think the same thing.
If you're not suggesting that then apologies. But this post goes to anyone who thinks it, anyway.