Kmcalpin

I share the same concerns many posters have expressed about our start to this season, but the chances are that Edinburgh City didn't put 11 men behind the ball and park the bus from kick off last night.

Good posts Denny & StAndrew7. Thats my thoughts exactly. I think SK made a miscalculation. A lot of us saw Montrose equalising long before they did but obviously SK didn't. Some odd substitutions that turned the game, but not in a positive way. Would have liked to have seen Stupavaric appear long before he did.

Not a lot to say about last night's game at a macro level that hasn't already been said, but here are some additional thoughts. I thought we had the capability to move up a gear or two but didn't do so until Montrose equalised and twisted our arm into doing so. Oxborough was my MOTM. Very confident in the air; pulled off one incredible save and saved a penalty in the shoot out. Gordon impressed, with his leadership at the back as did Lennon Miller in midfield. Robinson looked fine but not really fair to judge him given his lack of service. We struggled at wing back through lack of pace and that affected our attacking threat. Again a wee bit disappointed in Ewan Wilson. I was really looking forward to him developing. Didn't do much wrong last night but was never really an attacking threat, apart from one occasion. Paton was all over the place and not his usual self. Halliday still fails to impress. I know he's a young lad but I still don't get what SK sees in Mark Ferrie. He came on as a sub a few times last term and looked out of his depth and last night was hardly seen when he came on latish, but before Stuparevic - maybe just me. As on last Saturday the referee stopped the game after 90 minutes exactly. No additional time despite umpteen subs being made. Is this some kind of official instruction?

Yes, we definitely need an imposing main striker, creative No 10 and a pacy wing back. All of these deficiencies were known months ago. As Steelboy ( I think) said, we have a lot of midfielders most of them mediocre and most playing the same role. If anyone wasn't aware of that fact then they most certainly will be now.

Agreed. Decisions off the pitch cost us. I think SK got the balance between pre season gametime/experiments and serious cup competitveness a bit wrong. We've now displayed similar failings against Livingston, Edinburgh City and now Montrose. There seemed to be a lack of urgency tonight and the game had a pre season friendly, stroll in the park, feel about it. Just read Spiderpig's response and I agree with that. The way things are shaping up, we will have to beat Partick to finish top of the group, and I'm far from confident we will do that.

We've done not too badly at unearthing successful strikers in recent years. Chris Porter, Scott MacDonald, John Sutton, Michael Higdon, Louis Moult, KVV, and now Theo Bair. No reason why that can't continue.

I suspect its already being considered.

I doubt if that would work in Fir Park. Would fans be forced to relocate from the POD Stand to other stands? That might cause the odd problem or three and upset a fair few. It depends on the scale of course. Some people like myself prefer a decent view from higher up. The club might also lose a portion of season ticket income if prices were reduced for the new stand.

As far as I know there are 2 food kiosks; one at the north end and one at the south end. As far as the southern one goes, its small and located on a landing, immediately adjacent to the toilets. Before kick off and at half time, the queue stretches around the landing and mingles with those coming and going to the toliets, and those coming and going to hospitality. I don't think anything can be done about that. The structure needs a million or two spent on to bring it up to an acceptable standard and that includes an extension built onto it at prohibitive cost. All in it would be cheaper in the long run to move to a new stadium. At some point in the not too distant future, it may well fail a safety certificate. Thats how bad it is. As with the entire ground, maintenance costs are high and mounting. A move to a new 10,000 capacity stadium is inevitable and I'd rather it was at a time of our choosing than at one being forced upon us. Thats why we need external investment (just not the Wild Sheep version). I don't doubt that the stadium issue was / is a factor in Jim McMahon and the EB's thinking in supporting the Barmack proposal. However, that proposal is not nearly sufficient and not right for us. The sooner we start planning for a new home the better. Easier said than done of course. Still, rumours abound.

South end of POD Stand.

Hopefully, thats all in instalments and not inclusive of add ons.

Some good posts on P & B about the state of the POD Stand. Its long overdue serious refurbishment or replacement. There's no doubt its been badly neglected in recent years. A lick of paint simply won't cut it. Broken seats, seats bolted to steps, inadequate catering and toliet facilites. I could go on. Apart from the seating area, the hospitality suite and other facilities are way past their sell by date. Its a bit of an embarassment from a bygone era. A refurbishment was mooted a year or two back, but that has been quietly forgotten. In short it needs replacing, but that won't come cheap. Hopefully the winds of change blowing through the club now will sweep away this old and tired relic.

Agree with many previous comments. A comfortable, if slightly laboured, win against lower league opposition who didn't do anything apart from pack 11 men behind the ball. Given their tactics it was always going to be a test of our attacking capability. The game itself was a mixture of pre season preparation and serious cup tie and a 3-0 win suggests that SK got that balance right. On paper the team and set up looked cautious and that probably reflected our injury list and desire to give certain players gametime. I get why we played 3-5-1-1 / 3-6-1 but we simply didn't have the players for it. We do need to have a plan B. Similar to the Livingston friendly in some ways, we struggled to create chances and lacked penetration against a deep lying packed defence. The fact that 3 defenders scored from crosses says a lot. Our most productive approach was always going to be to simply overpower them and so it proved. Balmer looked impressive and Paton caught the eye, despite being played out of position. He's an energetic jack of all trades master of none. Dylan Wells took time to adjust but came onto a game later on. A promising talent, his bruises today will tell him just how physically tough senior football is. He'll need to be gently phased in to first team football. I thought young McDermott also looked promising nwhen he entered the fray. I was slightly disappointed with Ewan Wilson. He didn't play badly and did very well to set up our third, but he didn't bomb up and down the wing in the way I thought he would. He has the tools to do it and SK reminded him fairly vocally several times to impose himself more. On the debit side, we are crying out for a striker who can play in the Bair single striker role and thats a huge failing at the moment. Moses looks to be a penalty box player who can do little else apart from put the ball in the net; an odd thing to say. Hopefully the incoming striker will fill that void. Without Nicholson we have no "No 10" creativity whatsover in midfield and thats also a huge weakness. It will be another 2 months probably before the team settles down and we find out our best starting 11. Early indication though is that the midfield seems to full of bodies but is unbalanced in its composition. Still, a 3-0 win is a win.

Keith could play in several positions, in goals, central defencer and up front. A favourite of mine. Tuesday night could well be tricky.Montrose will fancy their chances on a plastic surface.

That's what I heard too. Another striker incoming in the next week or two.

Apparently, you're right. Its alternative name is Poseur Island. Anyway looking forward to our first competitive game of the season.

Never heard of it. I checked my atlas but couldn't find any trace of it. I've come to the conclusion it must be part of, or near, the Dutch East Indies. Maybe somewhere near the Marshall or Solomon Islands?

Well you did follow the instructions!

I think Paton is OK and adds some energy to our engine room. However I see him as being a box to box player being played out of position whilst Nicholson is unavailable. We badly need an understudy or alternative to Nicholson.

It does, but I don't blame the TV companies. They're only giving fans what they want.....at a price. If there was no demand they wouldn't do it. Turkeys voting for Christmas?

Thats correct StAndrew7. However a very close vote would be disastrous for everyone and leave many fans unhappy. The support would be divided. Lets hope for a clear result either way. I know its very unlikely but what would happen in the event of a 50/50 evenly split vote? The worst possible scenario

Do you know what the precise current arrangements are?

Thats a constructive approach. In terms of ignorance about the way the club is run, "we" could take 2 approaches. The first is to blame the fans who don't understand,but thats not helpful. The second is to take a more constructive approach. The term "Executive Board", will mean little to many - Executive Board of what? So that's a communication issue. Why not rename it "Club Board"? Not a massive or costly change but one which might help some fans to understand better. Just an example of what might help.

Good for the club. I hope that we tell him to do one politely and respectfully. Hopefully it'll be a no vote, but the Society Board can engage with him to see if some kind of deal fairer to the club can be thrashed out. Maybe, maybe not. We want to be encouraging outside investors, as long as its on the right terms. He would have to show willingness to compromise though.

I'm fairly relaxed about contrary opinions. On balance, Its probably a good thing. I can't speak for the new Society Board, but suspect they'd agree. I am however bit concerned at how polarised the discussion has been. Its become an echo chamber, especially on P & B, and thats unhealthy. I'm always keen to listen to other's arguments, if they're contrary to mine. Its important to understand why they think as they do and not because they're "morons or idiots". They may have genuine concerns that haven't been addressed or through poor communications. It also helps to flush and tease out weaknesses in our own arguments and plans. It would be soul destroying for the Society Board to achieve a 100% No vote and few comments on its newly launched strategy, those which are received, being "Fine or I agree". It will want to encourage engagement and flush out weaknesses in its strategy and to receive constructive criticism. It will want, too, to understand the concerns of non members in order to encourage them to join. We should be talking to fans, not talking at them. My biggest concern, is dividing and splitting the fans; that would be catastrophically disastrous. We have to keep the debate respectful. Not getting at you by the way Tam.