PedroMoutinho

Very possible

The figure given was actually 20-22 and we’re currently at 19 so not far off what was budgeted, particularly if some if some of the new signings were given improved offers than originally envisaged.

Don’t think anyone is saying that but equally the idea that you will play poorly all pre season and magically turn up all firing on the first day of the season is delusional. Some positives to take from yesterday (particularly the young guys) but equally we had the same issues from the same players who let us down last season. With word coming out of the club that there are no current plans to recruit a rb as the budget has gone, we will need to see an improvement from the current squad.

Very little you can take from a game like that but I thought we looked much better once the young guys came on (and civil service tired). Allan did well when he came on and was quite impressed by Lang and Spencer although we still lack a bit of dynamism in midfield for me. We’d be stronger with a striker and a rb although I’m not convinced we’ll get them. Think goals could be an issue as we really only have Morrison and Allan to score them.

Imo Henderson will partner Lang

Clearly by that point he knew he was leaving the club. Ultimately in my view we have a player who is a goal threat (albeit inconsistent) leaving the club and strikers either coming in to replace him or extending their contracts who will not get many, which is a worry.

12 goals is hardly disappointing considering he only started 40% of games. By comparison, Oliver who started 75% of games only got 10 goals and Maciver started 92% of games and had 6 goals(which has surely got to make . I know which one I’d rather have next season…

A 20 goal a season striker isn’t a necessity so long as you have goals throughout the team, which isn’t the case for us at the moment. Nesbitt’s goal record is poor for a number 10, Miller isn’t a goal scorer, Agyeman I expect to get a few but doesn’t look prolific, Oliver isn’t a goal scorer and Maciver isn’t a goal scorer. That leaves a huge reliance on Morrison and hoping Allan replicates his Clyde form rather than the rest of his career.

The whole narrative about Burrell being a bad influence is a bit of a nonsense for me that is clearly designed to absolve McGlynn and last season’s failures of responsibility. Meanwhile a number of players who contributed far less than Burrell will still be here next season (even on extended contracts in some cases).

Not a world beater but a far better option and bigger goal threat than Oliver or Maciver in my view

I’d rather have had him than Oliver or Maciver

I think it’s decent enough but could’ve done without the red on the collar

As an option at centre half I would presume. Henderson did a job in midfield hit not sure I’d want him there long term.

Seems like a set of decent signings on the face of it. Feet still firmly on the ground as we are still lumbered with too many of last season’s squad for my liking (a good number at McGlynn’s choice). Real quality in at right back and midfield and we may have a chance. Upfront could well be a big issue imo largely because Oliver and Maciver are unlikely to get you many goals.

I’ve no problem with him being a squad player but if he is our starting number 10 we will be in trouble imo

Because he contributes very little from open play.

Morrison and Burrell both contribute(d) a lot more than Nesbitt imo. Nesbitt’s assist stats are often pulled out (many of which were from corners) but look at his goal figure. 5 goals in 49 appearances, which is nowhere near enough for a number 10 in a single striker formation. McGuffie got 7 goals and spent most of the season on the bench.

From what I understand Holt offered him substantially more than he was on at Morton and he had no offers from other clubs (I don’t know whether Morton offered him a deal). I’d be astonished if any other clubs were offering him a 2 year deal this summer and if there were, they’d have been welcome to him for me.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting the board stop the manager recruiting who he wants (unless there is a Goodwillie-type scenario). However, for me there has got to be some oversight of contract terms/lengths. Particularly in a situation where by all accounts it could be a part time squad in 2024 and the current manager’s contract expires in 1 year. Fundamentally for me it is not necessary or appropriate to be handing out 2 year deals to league 1 jobbers.

We know exactly what Nesbitt will contribute based on the past 2 seasons- a handful of good performances and very little otherwise. Never mind a saleable asset, I’d pay an other club to take him off our hands.

So if McGlynn offered Brad McKay a 3 year extension tomorrow, you wouldn’t expect the board to bat an eyelid as long as it was within budget?

While I totally agree that the board shouldn’t be telling the manager who he can’t and can’t sign, surely there has to be some oversight of contract terms. Particularly when you’ve got a manager who could very well be out the door before some of his signings. Otherwise you can easily end up with duds on inflated wages and extended contracts like Holt left us with.

Alston was always a player that flattered to deceive a bit for me even in his first spell. Capable of the odd wonder strike but too many games passed him by. Think the chances of him returning are pretty much zero.

Exactly- all very well saying the squad isn’t finished but realistically we’re only looking at 4 or 5 outfield signings at most now. In an ideal world they will all turn out to be nailed on starters but I’d be very pleasantly surprised if that turned out to be the case given our recruitment record over the last 6 or 7 years. The situation upfront is particularly concerning imo.

The thing is we have 14 players signed as it is (plus the possibility Paul Watson will be offered a contract). You are therefore relying on all of the remaining signings being starters, which is a big ask.