superward

Fair enough. I certainly was the opposite. McFadden was rubbish in all but say 10ish games last year. I think that will prove to be the same again. In my opinion not worth it given our finances. That said, Law has not worked out as I originally imagined after seeing his European games. Clarkson was not even scoring regularly down south. 20 odd goals in 120 games or so. I remember looking at that stat, thinking back to when he went when I was surprised the money we got for him and just wasn't bothered we passed on this opportunity to sign him again. Clearly, now, I wish we had. Although, I don't think he would have scored 8 in our team as we have nobody creating anything.

Hindsight is awesome Imagine we had signed Ryan Stevenson and Lee Miller when everyone was going on about it? That would have been good...(Sarcasm)

Hindsight is awesome.

I don't agree with all of that but apathy does seem to be setting in. Sooner the club ownership and then management situation is sorted the better.

I think that's harsh. Lasley was terrible though, I thought. A lot of effort but made the wrong choice again and again.

Dan - mentions to Ojamma, Vigurs, Law, Lawson and Angol for their first half performances.

Just reflecting a bit more. Twardzik was outstanding today. Also very pleased with the dig Vigurs showed throughout. He needs to do that every game.

Good first half performance with Vigurs, Law, Ojamma, Angol and Lawson all great. Second half change to 4-5-1 was a wrong move and you could see when Lawson went if off it really rattled us. Reid does a job and blocked passes but unfortunately does not have the skill of Lawson and therefore we lost composure. That's said, the two goals were very defendable and we should have done better at them.

I have woken up feeling more confident than I did. 2-1 win with Jackie complaining they should have scored more and deserved to win. Yas!

Absolutely agree.

The reason I called it simplistic is because if the club went with your approach it would be a very risky decision based on a huge amount of assumption. At the end of the day every decision in business has to be one that is thought through carefully with the pros and cons weighed up, assumptions, risks and potential mitigations taken into account. Not everyone will agree on the decision made and much like it would seem yourself and I wouldn't go with the same approach I am sure members of the board will be the same. holding the business on slow tickover from the outside, losing opportunities weekly because of the potential feelings/reputation about a person thats not even employed by the club, whilst the business is faltering at a terrifying rate? 'from the outside'. Exactly this, we don't know what's going on inside the club so to base a risky approach on large assumption is simplistic and not addressing the major risks that go with it. It's not to do with the feeling/reputation of someone else. What I meant was, from our point of view,what decent/credible manager is going to take a job with a caveat that says they might be out of the job in a a month or two? Would the appointment be worth it both from a financial point of view or a continuity point of view? Without knowing the names of people its hard to know but I would say not. look at it again, continuity? thats fine, as I said, if its a friendly change in ownership and a manager had been appointed,you'll have have your continuity, the new manager would have been in job for a few weeks at the most vulnerable time the club has had in a decade. I do agree on this. If there was any evidence of more probability on the 'friendly takeover' happening I would maybe have a slightly different view and say the level of risk in trying to appoint a manager not is not as high. But, there isn't and I would say all the murmurs point towards 'the consortium' rather than 'friendly change'. Continuity if its a radical takeover? thats mental putting a business at risk for something that might or might not happen and the least of anyones worries if it does, I would argue you are putting the club more at risk by not taking into account things that 'may or may not happen'. It's basic risk management. the appointed manager will have been made aware,and lets look at your emphasis on their credibility? its not exactly Mourhino we're expecting in, lookat all the factors and our last half dozen appointments, not many would beleaving desirable jobs to come to us, it would hardly destroy a reputation ofanyone in 'our league' were they to work for 6-10? weeks and then somethingradical happened and they were let go True, but my point, again, is who would we be able to appoint that would agree to a clause that says you might be out of a job in a month or two because of the impending takeover etc? I am sure we could get someone in but would it be someone that much better than Kenny Black taking into account we would have to pay this person a salary in the interim? , the 'cost?' not a worry if its a consortiumlooking at structure change they will have 'budgeted' for the changes even ifthe club cannot afford it. Your assuming 'the consortium' would agree to budget for this potential change of manager. That could be correct, but what also could be correct is that they have had discussions with the board to say that they would not support the costs of paying a manager off if indeed they do takeover. The simplistic argument here would be that they don't have anything to do with the club yet and it shouldn't but have a bearing on our decisions. But, business is not like that and unfortunately any interested party will potentially have a bearing on our decisions given out current need to sell quickly. meantime many weeks trundling along,opportunites lost and more importantly commerical income dissapearing,fundraiser nights cancelled, perhaps the single cup tie cash gate of the seasonand associtated commercial opportunity squandered. Fans/customers choosingother options at a prime time of year. I'll will take on board the cup game, if we lose it, would be kick in the stones financially. But, again, a new manager is not going to guarantee that win. As for the rest, I don't think there will be any major loss in commercial income if we appoint a manager mid December as opposed to mid November. there are no guarantees a new manager would turnaround the lack of points in the first few weeks or indeed at all, but an appointment during the international break would have been a much needed boost,at a critical time, Deal with the business first and maximise any opportunity,worry about the future when and IF any significant event happens. 'Worry about the future when and if it happens?' Simplistic. If we ran our club like that then we wouldn' thave a club right now. the club only has a limited number of 'eventdates' to bring in income, letting them pass, with the club in its present limpmode , is dissapointing. Again, appointing a manager mid December, as opposed to mid November I dont think will have a huge impact. Letting it roll on into and past Christmas I think would, however. PS football manager? never played it, whatsort of score do you get, when things are not working and you just leave itdoing the same thing over and over and over again? Leaving things ticking over for 4 – 6 weeks, rather than 2, while a major club buyout is in progress? Probably better points than appointing a random sub standard manager for a couple of weeks, wasting wages and causing upheaval.

It's not just about ethics. It's about continuity and costs. Managers don't just walk away. Maybe McCall did but Black will have a contract that will require compensation if we boot him, so would the new manager if he then gets booted again. No credible manager will come in and sign a contract and say "aye, cool if the new owners come in in 2 weeks I will just walk away for free". The simplistic nature of this board, like we are playing Football Manager, is mental sometimes.

It's fair enough if people don't go for whatever reason especially if you need the money more. However, to everyone else if you can afford it then I would say get along and cheers the team on.

Sins worth certainly said it in the press conference. When did MicManus?

Aye, I was only kidding on.

Not confident...and I am a glass half full type of guy. Not even sure what to do to change it either as the subs bench does not hold any magic far as I am concerned. A hard working game from everyone with no silly defensive mistakes would do me.

I personally don't buy into that simplistic approach and I dont think there is a need to go to that extreme of low budget setting. All it does is set the club up to not progress as we would never have a squad to challenge league/cups, win more cash and push on. However, nor do I buy into basing a budget on unrealistic aims and overspending year on year. There needs to be a middle ground that will help the club progress as well as be safe from dwindling into a club that always hovers around the relegation zone. Budgeting for a Top 6 finish but not budgeting for great cup runs or selling a player every year for example? At the end of the day it is about how risk averse you are as a person in regards what you would aim for. A carefully forecasted and well managed budget should allow you to safely financially speculate and improve year on year.

Maybe it's option C. If the well society didn't work then John Boyle or him and some mates are going to come in and have a crack at it again.

Real life dos the work like that. They are telling us what they can without negatively affecting any potential outcome. That's ok with me as paying Society member. Yea, the comms could maybe be a little clearer but not a major issue for me. Sit tight and things will sort themselves out one way or the other.

I wouldn't put too much confidence in this tweet chaps. In regards the recent soft loans, they have been from the Well Society, not Boyle, and we have paid them back. So given we have no bank debt then, as far as I am aware, the only thing that could put us into admin would be: John Boyle calling in the remaining debt we owe him. Which would mean him going back on the terms of the loan he agreed to and that we have been paying back each month for years now. Possible, but I cant really see it. OR We have mounting debts to suppliers etc and they are at such a level that admin is the only option. I cant see that either. In regards our overall financial situation. I do think we have speculated a little and not really accumulated as we would have expected over the past 3 years. By that I mean we seem to be basing our budget on Top 6 finishes and decent cup runs, rather than bottom 6 etc and I think that was the right thing to do to move on and improve. Keeping wages at the same level has meant we have finished best of the rest and had good teams but unfortunately, and this is the key bit, we have not seen that translated into much income from cup competitions, europe and also no increase in attendances. Add to that the rather unfortunate situation with a drop in prize money for 2nd place that we agreed to whilst having a bonus structure we probably didnt expect to pay out on the same year! That is why we have seen the losses.

Confirmed by an agent... Not exactly the most trustworthy of sources!

Odds changing again: Adams drifting out to nearly evens, McKinlay into 2nd favourite at 11/2, Black into 3rd favourite at 13/2. Solano out to 4th and now Gary Locke next closest after that at 14/1.

Malky MacKay in at 10/1 On Paddy Power today. New to market I think? 3rd favourite behind Solano and Adams. Both of them have came in today.

I think Calderwood gets a bad rap just because he has a cracking tan. Jealousy pouring out of Steelmen Online....

I am sure I remember a lot of people being none to impressed with McGhee, Gannon, Brown and McCall. 3 of them worked out fairly well!