Mr Heliums

I know what you mean – this isn't perfect time to go for a second referendum. And I'd imagine Nicola Sturgeon knows this. But if not now, when? Leaving the EU against our will was the only trigger mentioned in the SNP's manifesto and if we don't act on that, I can't think of another opportunity in the next decade that will convince enough people that independence is the best way of building a fairer Scotland. In other words, we need to think of this as a free shot. If we lose it, there isn't another chance for a generation. But if we don't go for it, same thing. What we do need is for things to be lined up. We need an answer to the currency question (Scottish pound, pegged to sterling), the border (hopefully Ireland will help us with this) and EU membership (need some big voices from Europe guaranteeing us entry). The selling point for independence needs to be 'what sort of a country do we want to be?'. Not one built solely on EU membership, but that comes as part of being a modern, outward-looking European state. The 'No' campaign's only carrots will be further devolution – watch for farming and fishing to be used as bargaining tools.

So did you take it?

I think the only thing I've learned during this Brexit debacle is that that statement is never true.

But they can't KEEP playing it. They played it during Indyref and then as good as blocked it during the Smith Commission. Now they're back saying 'Devo Max' again. Who on earth is listening now? Besides, hard to argue the merits of 'devo max' when you're being told to suck it up because Brexit was a 'UK-wide referendum'.

But these aren't inconsistent – they tie into the facts we know. Lomas rated May because he offered him a two-year deal. We know May wasn't too keen as he only accepted a one-year deal. What's clearly nonsense is the statement that Lomas 'wanted rid' of May. As nelsjfc said, it's revisionism.

Yes – that's the accepted story (although to be fair, we've never heard Lomas's side of it). But the unarguable fact is Lomas's Saints offered May a two-year deal* in one of his last acts as a Saints manager. Hardly 'wanting him gone'. * May, like Caddis, took the one-year offer

I certainly didn't know that. Living in some sort of fantasy world, I hallucinated that he'd signed a new one-year contract a few days before Lomas was approached to become manager of Millwall.

What? Isn't this another attempt to rewrite history? You're saying Lomas was about to release a player who'd just scored 25 goals in the Championship?

I think that's part of the problem with MacLean and it isn't his fault. He's just the sort of player who needs a particular type of partner to play alongside him and if he doesn't have that, we're insipid up front. And I can't stand it when he plays up front on his own. It also restricts options: with MacLean a guaranteed pick, we've never seen Cummins and Kane together for any length of time. I'm not saying they're better than Macca but I do wonder how they'd gel if they were both in form and got some experience together. For all the sentimental appeal attached to one of them, I hope we don't go near May or O'Halloran. It's clear both these players will cost a lot of money, and while that might be worth it if we were chasing a Europa League place or battling relegation, they way we are I'd rather we skipped the short-term solution and looked at players who might be here next season.

They'll come out with the same sort of nonsense this time, and the same people will believe it, sadly.

Aye, maybe, but presumably the Irish border won't be settled by the time of the referendum? Even if so, Unionists would presumably argue that it's a special case?

I think the UK Govt's whole angle will be hard border with Scotland as the stick (losing access to the 'the UK single market') and more powers (fishing, agriculture) as the carrot. Success in countering that really does require a separate currency and strong EU support.

Brown has already said his priorities were Swanson and Shaughnessy. He's offered them deals. Not sure how much clearer he could be. Any other signings will be balanced against his other priority: mitigating what I expect will be a big loss this season. He won't want Wright to waste money like he did last year, so I imagine he'll do all he can to avoid another Dave Mackay situation. That might not be good news for Chris Millar.

Well maybe that's the only plausible, if tenuous, reason. But you'd think somewhere down south would be the better bet. Certainly the 'freeing up' wages for Rangers theory doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

But even if this was a reason, could we realistically take on the burden of a chunk of his wages? For a player who we're not even sure fits into the team? I just can't see it.

But might help us actually beat the likes of Partick Thistle too. Far more logical for Rangers to loan to a team in bottom half of the league with caveat he can't play against Rangers.

Not sure I get the logic of Rangers loaning us a player like O'Halloran. Would surely strengthen us, and – at least on paper – we're still battling them for a place in Europe.

We should just take the old-school approach to player recruitment. Doesn't seem that our requirements have particularly changed in the past 120 years.

Yeah, I think the N Ireland/Republic relationship will hopefully put that scare story to bed.

But (a) the Scottish electorate is being ignored – we voted against exit; and (b) the manifesto clearly stated what might happen if Scotland was removed from the EU against its will. You can argue whether we were voting as the UK or not – but we certainly didn't vote for the sort of hard brexit that's now being proposed and what the First Minister proposed today is perfectly reasonable. It's hardly bluff and bluster – that description falls to the nonsense we were told during the Independence referendum about safeguarding our EU membership.

Wasn't so long ago* that St Johnstone were universally seen as exemplars of 'good, scientific football', showing the likes of Liverpool how to play the game. Perhaps Aberdeen could take a lesson. * Actually it was nearly 90 years ago, but still, point stands.

Doesn't matter when it was due to be paid – it would still be accounted for. That £450k figure is the net of O'Halloran's fee and any purported May add-on.

I don't know if there were any add-ons payable. It's possible the 'Income from Player Trading' line includes money for more than one player. But if so, then (a) the O'Halloran fee was much less than was publicised and (b) any Stevie May 'add-on' was pretty trivial. That sounds unlikely, so my best guess is that there was no add-on.

Thanks. After paying that much money, turning up on the wrong day would have made my head explode.

Not true. As explained above, the MOH fee is included in this year's accounts. It was more than £400k, and I can't see any reason why any of it would be held over to another set of accounts. The budget is set at the start of the season, so while I'm sure there's flexibility, it's fair to say that without that fee, we'd have been looking at a solid loss; perhaps our worst since 2003. I wouldn't therefore call 'substantial' an exaggeration. (Just as a reminder of how quickly we could squander our bank balance, even under Geoff Brown it only took us five seasons between 2000 and 2004 to accumulate £2.5million of losses – nearly £1m of that in a single season. We also went through five seasons of consecutive losses between 2009 and 2013).