The Original 59er
-
Posts
939 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by The Original 59er
-
-
Generally speaking Saints have a pretty consistent record of moving managers on...... for various reasons.
The BoD's obviously think they are appointing the right person at the time and the soundbites that come from the new manager's mouth say much the same thing each time: "great opportunity, club with a great tradition, potential to challenge in the top 6 each year" etc, etc.
I can think back through lots of incumbents of the post and none come in and say; "I appreciate that the club and fans expect top 6 each year, or to win cups each year and that I will deliver this"...... no, if they read between the lines they know that they are taking on a provincial club, in the shadow of the Glasgow mafia and all they can push for is the odd period of sunshine.
My feelings about DL are that at times he and TC show nous and tactical awareness, and whilst they have worked to build a good squad of players, I don't think either get the best out of the limited squad consistently enough. The effective tactical approach is patchy to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Looking down through the ages, we tend to pick up the next manager from a club that is theoretically below us in the leagues, or from within, we never really bring a name to the club that has proved their credentials in another similarly sized club, or indeed one that is bigger than us. So if a manager is a success he heads off to larger pastures new, or if as a failure, we look to below to fill the gap.
I don't see that changing, and I suspect we won't see any change until at least the end of the season, ............. and by that time it may be too late!
-
Our BoD's take quite a different view to our current Manager's win ratio than many others do in football.
We have a return this season of 30% of the available points. Last year we managed 36% throughout the entire season and we only managed 2nd bottom place. If we continue on current form we are destined for the play-off spot.
The feeling appears to be we are damned if we do (relieve him of his duties now) and we will be damned if we don't. What is clear is that the BoD's will feel the force of the fans vitriol if we are relegated and they have done nothing to act through this period of absolute mediocrity.
-
Drew: "This is a wind-up, right?"
You might read it that way............................ self deprecation, parody and vague sarcasm is something I might be drawn to when encouraged by others!
-
Maboza asked:
Genuine question though....
What is your opinion on the standard of politician at Westminster and feel free to name some (good/bad/whatever) so we can get an idea of your thoughts).
The class of MPs currently sitting in Westminster are marginally more capable and interesting than the MPs before 2010, but the difference is probably not worth mentioning or indeed distinguishable. The less interesting, independent and intelligent you are, the more likely you are to be selected and to rise up the system. Westminster seems to value obedience, party principles and conformity more than ability or moral values.
There are exceptions. Many MPs are talented and principled. But they are notable for their scarcity.
If I was to name a couple I admire they would be Denis Skinner for his undying ability to pester, question, harass and be a general pain in the butt of all before him (Labour Party included).
I also think Jessica Lee (a Tory to those who are uninformed) comes across as someone both principled and bright, but you might expect that of a barrister.
I admit that it seems less common now for really talented individuals to enter parliament, then government as they probably see the party system as too rigid and controlling, so their desire to help the country improve gets bashed out of them.
I do know several people however who have to deal with Westminster politicians on a frequent basis, and I do get 1st hand reports that many more than you think are very bright, have a lot of brain cells and get things done. One or two of the names might surprise you, but would get ridiculed on this forum.
-
Drew, 83 pages of this so-called debate is a challenge, I suggest, most contributors might body-swerve. Be that as it may, yes I have read a fair cross section of contributions and yes I do recognise polarised opinions.
As one poster said yesterday, I may well lean towards the Yesish side, but I'm greatly saddened by the quality of politician that will lead my country if the vote is for independence.
I did ask for non-condescension ........................apparently impossible for you, however I'll desist from personal attack and leave you to your apparent saltire coloured view from your blue-tinted spectacles and perhaps read some other medium for informed debate.
Bullying seems to become you!
-
"Possibly worth pointing out for balance that in your worst case scenario of a Scottish banking crisis the UK most likely contribute to any bailout - whether that be within or outwith a currency union as can be seen by the £7bn+ UK bailout towards Ireland and £3.5bn+ which went towards the Icelandic crisis.
Also worth noting that the US Federal Reserve contributed $1tn / £640bn to bailout UK based banks of which Barclays (HQ, One Churchill Place, London) received approx £583bn.
Which leads to the fact that banks are bailed out by where they do business rather than strictly where their HQ is based. This can be further noticed by cross-border bail outs with Dexia and Fortis banks in Europe during the financial crisis."
Perhaps so Maboza, however that would very much depend on the Scottish Banks falling in line with the EU and UK Treasury policies as to how banks should act. Assuming they sign into that agreement, how would they be independent?
Whilst much of the reasoning behind the Icelandic banking collapse was linked to the property crash, particularly in the UK, there has been substantial discussion and disagreement between the countries as to compensation payments. Would that occur between the UK and the Scottish Banking system?
Once thing I have learned is never say "Never"!
-
I can take brickbats, thick skinned am I!
To continue my apparently one-dimensional argument, tell me how the UK£ or those that support the UK£ after independence, i.e. England, Wales and Northern Ireland, would accept the risk of supporting the Scottish banking system and its independent routes of procuring business.
It's not too long ago for either Oaksoft or Drew to remember the slight mess that our dearly beloved RBofS or for that matter the BofS got into and how the UK treasury (i.e. the UK tax-payer) bailed them out.
Pray tell me either of you, without being condescending, why the rest of the UK i.e. England, Wales & NI, would accept the risk of allowing Scotland to keep the UK£ when they have no control over the Scottish banking system?
It has a little bit of feel like Cuba, where the tourist CUC is pegged basically to the apparently filthy US$, yet the internal Peso is something like 26.5 Cuban Pesos to the US$. God forbid we get into a dual currency arrangement.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So if its independence that you want, why not take on the full independence characteristics of a separate currency, then you have no tie to the UK economy and what they do, won't affect the Scottish Groat.
Take a leaf out of Iceland's book, (however just bear in mind their complete Banking collapse and also that their banking system is actually proportionally less than the like-for-like Scottish ratio of the GDP) and go for independence without ties to the EU and then you can set your own fishing policies, your own defence arrangements and also your own currency not tied to anything else.
Now that MIGHT appeal, however the sh*t scared politicians know they can't take that leap as they enjoy the relative security of European and UK shelter that the grants and financial aid that is thrown at 'poor' EU states.
Sorry to say the debate is VERY POOR and the quality of those on both sides is reflective of that debate.
-
Interesting diversion LS, but maybe wrong thread!
As much as I have admiration for DL, I'm afraid he lost me much earlier this year and a number of his team / substitution decisions have left me scratching my head - no wonder I'm bald!
I think his days are numbered. We make no progress on the pitch and far less progress in the leagues. We are closely related to the play-off and unless something inspiring happens over the next few games we are in the mix for the drop.
Even if we manage to scrape free from that mire, nice man or not, I think he's had his chance.
-
It's really interesting to see the views aired by so many pro-independence supporters and their relatively dogmatic following of the faith that is the pro-Yes campaign.
That above statement would strongly suggest that I am against the principle, but that in reality would be wrong. As a generality I support the idea of a strong independent Scotland completely un-reliant on others to survive.
My faith however has been strongly eroded over the years by the quality of the debate and the paucity of the quality of good politicians advocating separation. I recall attending SNP debates in the town hall in Paisley as far back as the late 60's. I remember amongst others, Gordon Wilson speaking and it is fair to say he argued well for the independence route, but the party never really gained much momentum by following a well-trodden path of argument that Scottish Oil for Scotland would make us truly self-sufficient and strong. I could see it then and with the obvious argument ringing in our ears, you would have thought that the Scottish Assembly vote in 1979 would (if ever there was an appropriate moment) have been followed.
I know that many point to Norway as a shining example of a country that has used North Sea oil as to how we should prosper, and also point to Denmark as an example of a similarly sized country that can survive financially in this hostile economic world. Sweden also gets mentioned in much the same way. Indeed just last week there were newspaper reports that the separated Scotland may ally themselves to the Scandinavian grouping more, if independence was secured.
All of these countries, bar none, have anything like the economic profile, the post industrial revolution economic woes and housing issues that Scotland has and will continue to face.
The time for Scotland to have turned their back on the rest of the UK and secured separation in all areas, would have been between 1966 and the coming of the Margaret Thatcher era. Why it didn't happen in '79 beats me, as we soon learned how bitter Thatcher was in her regard for Scotland.
So here we are now in a period of deja-vu, only this time round we have achieved a Scottish Assembly (now called a parliament) and even more so now, there is a terrible scarcity of good political heavyweights who in a political sense tick the box. The quality of the politician debating the argument is dire.
All I see or hear are negative arguments emanating from each side. In many respects I understand the UK parliament and the "no" campaign's position, all they can argue for is much of the same as you have now - they can't offer anything new they can't promise gold for us all, they can't say that if you vote "no" in September all will get better, all they can say is you know what you have at present and the strength of the UK behind you will ensure that it will not get any worse.
On the contrary the SNP's approach is that they can tempt you and offer you little tit-bits and they can tell you that it will get better, but they would say that wouldn't they! They've got nothing to lose................................... Yet I can't believe them. The quality of the debate in the Scottish Parliament building is pathetic and nothing convinces me from what I see or hear, that I want the current SNP political group that has secured a SMP position, as being the people that I want running my country.
The example of Salmond's argument that we must and have a right to keep the £ is of course central to his cause and a defeat of that argument would severely dent his and his party's credibility. Yet no-one has yet convinced me just how an independent Scotland can keep the current UK£ as its currency. Whatever the UK does, affects the £. Either by waging war, arguing with the EU, strength of exports and imports, increasing or decreasing the balance of trade, and meanwhile independent Scotland has no control over that stage,
I've read above that yes the £ in your Scottish pocket would be worth the same as the English £ so on your theoretical Welsh holiday it would be worth the exact same. Sorry I don't get that one - if you follow Alex Salmond's theory that we would all be better off, then the Scottish £ will actually buy you more and the stronger Scottish pound will be say 5% stronger than the UK £. I would then theoretically use my Scottish £ notes and pay 5% less for my Welsh holiday!............................................ Balderdash.
No the policy of retaining the UK £ and then not having any control over how it performs is distorted logic at its extreme. It's a flawed policy and Alex Salmond knows it. I bet he wished that their policy stated that Scotland will establish its own currency (just like the Icelanders or Norwegians) and be truly independent. The groat comes to mind readily.
This all comes back to the scarcity of good informed debate as opposed to tabloid proclamations that are designed to appeal to the Sun readership at its best. AS's counter to last week's economic intervention was risible: he called it the 3 B's, "Bluster, Bluff and Bullying", .........is that the best he can come up with! Yet again the paucity of good debate.
Either some flash of brilliance is going to happen, or by September he and his SNP acolytes will soon be looking over their shoulder at the next Scottish Parliament elections as to whether they will still have their £57,500 salaries for the next few years.
-
Posted Today, 10:03
The word you are struggling with is "independence".
I don't really know what "separation" means. It doesn't appear in the question we're being asked to vote on.
You do know that calling it by its correct name won't automatically make it happen don't you?
Don't worry, you can't jinx "it which shall not be named" by ….er…..naming it.
This isn't Hogwarts.
Actually if you read my post it says; "in a separated state, England decide to ........................ etc etc"
I have no issue with the word independence, and for the sake of pedantry, I'm happy to say: "It's either full independence, or it's not"
In the case of the separation of the countries but not the pound, the influence of the remainder of the UK's actions must have an over-riding effect on what happens to how the pound operates, or indeed functions on the international money markets. The Scottish pound will not be any different in value to the UK pound so if external actions taken by the remainder of the UK affects that pound's strength then Scotland has to meekly follow as our influence of the pound will be minimal.
My reference to the NHS in Scotland refers to the fact that within Scotland nearly 23% of the working population works for the state out of the total working population of just over 2.5m. Yes the NHS is presently funded from within Scotland, but that will be partly funded through the payments currently received from Westminster. The high government employment rate, means that it is the remaining 78% of the population that has to fund the NHS and whatever defence system / force that the Scottish Government would support.
I struggle to see that the current £11.5 billion budget for the NHS in Scotland can be covered in the long term from solely within Scotland coupled with the ageing population demands that will be thrown at the system.
-
The reality of keeping the pound relies on some form of political union - simple fact!
If in a separated state, England decide to go to fight some further crusade, argue with Europe over some trade issues or take any measures fiscally that affect the £ then it follows that the pound in the Scottish pocket would also be affected.
It is a complete nonsense that the Yes campaign think they can wash over that argument. It's either full separation, or it's not, you can't have it both ways.
Don't get me started on the Yes vote's 'policies' on defence and the NHS!
-
A few seemed to like the post I made earlier on this topic, and if you note I don't actually single McAusland out as being the sole culprit I just feel that between the two, McGregor has more football in him that Marc and if we had a good commanding CH in the club then either or indeed both could benefit from that.
I do see issues in both players, but as said, in my opinion McGregor still shows more potential.
For the life of me I can't see why we ditched Lee Mair unless we had someone lined up. All it would need is one or other to be injured then you are looking at Goodwin, stepping back, or Kelly / Naismith stepping into the middle.
As I write this there are 14 hours and 35 minutes to find that elusive CH, OR we then dredge around the cast-offs for someone as a stand in - right now I feel slightly on edge that the last minute fix may be too late!
-
Ok, so the club have taken a perfectly understandable and laudable position and they have re-stated that they will not go into debt to buy players, or pay them inflated wages that either unsettle existing players or destabilise the fine line of book balancing.
That having all been said, they have basically cleared a number of players out and without double checking, I think I'm right in saying that we are probably shorter this year in playing strength than last and we have brought in a number of younger players who theoretically will cost less than seasoned professionals.
The need to strengthen the defence, especially in the middle of the park is obvious to see to just about every fan. The goals against column is the 3rd worst in the league but only just and it wouldn't take much to be the worst (and that includes Hearts)
. That follows last year when again we had the 3rd worst goals against record.Yet the management rely on McAusland and McGregor. I like McGregor and I think between the two he has more football skills and is getting back to the kind of form that the fans saw when he came to the club. Pats on the back to the club for seeing him through two horrendous injury years.
However that still leaves us with a shaky defence no matter how you look at it. Any time I see the defence under any pressure, I squirm. I get the pretty constant feeling that McAusland is a mistake waiting to happen. As much as he may be a St Mirren fan, his father having influence in other quarters etc, I feel he is a large part of the problem. Take him out of the team and put in a strong, no messing about centre half and I'm convinced our defence would leak a lot less goals.
I probably hark back to days of Gordon McQueen, Jim Clunie, Bobby Reid, Jack Copland (two of which came out of Junior football) to name only four, but all of these mentioned commanded the box, read the line really well and coaxed the best out of those around them.
I've got to say I think the management have failed us on this one, BIG style. By failing to recognise, or act to shore up the defence we are sitting targets for the play-off place.
P.S. - that's not knicker wetting either - we are only three points ahead of Thistle and County and the latter has a game in hand over us and a better goal difference!
-
I have to agree with Glenburnsaint, I struggle to understand why we persist with a central defence that leaks goals.
I thought McGregor had an outstanding game on Saturday but overall they still had that nervousness about them at times and I really thought that Thistle were going to steal it, right up to the end.
I can quite get my mind round why we haven't consolidated at the back. Our goals against column is, year on year, pretty poor and this year isn't any different compared to just about everyone else in the league.
A good commanding central defender can't be THAT hard to find and by all means have him next to McGregor or McAusland, but someone who can read the game, bring some composure and clear the danger by reading the line and build from the back, and not by passing back to the goalkeeper when the slightest pressure is applied.
-
Interesting to see where thread gets pulled!
I have a general sympathy with Ned's argument, however I have been accused of being too negative at times and only when we are three up with 5 minutes left to play do I feel REALLY positive. (I unfortunately witnessed the Hammarby jitterbug fiasco which has probably left me scarred for life!).
I do attend very regularly however with eternal optimism!
So Elvis, put the rose coloured spectacles on next time you come to see the team and expect the roller coaster and don't slit your throat / wrists, or your partner if they happen to throw away an unassailable lead with 3 minutes to go!
-
Oh please pray that you are WRONG................................. a centre half pretty please!
-
This thread would take the sheen off Barry, Martin, Charlie and Michael!
-
a bit of spit'n'polis
-
As Bjork famously once told us.................................
The Rumour Mill is plain crap just now with very few 'good' rumours to whet the appetite.
Only 8 days to go to the end of this ludicrous window and we get Chris (oh sh*t how did I miss that one) Iwelumo being used on this forum since he's signed for the fakes or Gary (who the hell is he) Dicker being flouted as the next great signing
Come on guys give us some really good meaty rumours so the mental juices start flowing!
-
careful.................. this will rub off on all the other members and it will be like a red rag to a table before you know it!
-
Time and time again I see dithering in and around the box - cue Goodwin & McAusland on Saturday - that's not a one off, either. They either hesitate, or meekly stick up a paw claiming off-side when basically they aren't reading the line remotely well - cue Boyd's winner at Killie.
We need a no nonsense centre half who takes a positive approach, commands the central defence, boots the ball to hell when needed and doesn't carry a reputation that comes before him for being a 'dirty' player.
I know you'll say it's hard to find, but I disagree. There are a lot of good journeyman professionals out there who would do a better job than we have at present (the -16 goal difference tells its own story). Both ICT & RC seem to come up with some pretty effective players that have 'failed' to make the grade elsewhere, so why can't we?
-
I really can't believe that this forum has generated 6 pages in the 'Rumour' Section debating whether Billy Mehmet should return to play for the Buddies.
One page maybe two............ but 6!
-
The two OF teams polarise the uneducated elements of the religious divide.
That isn't to say that some Catholics don't support Rangers and vice versa but the unyielding, blinkered individual who is far from educated is drawn to the support that mistakenly represents his or her views.
I don't subscribe to Schull's view that the two teams can basically just F off and that the magical disappearance of both would dissolve the issue over-night, but I do subscribe to the view that they would both be better off plying their misguided skills in another league!
I agree with the posts that segregated education is a real barrier to progress and as long as it is perpetuated the child of tomorrow is as likely to grow up thinking they are different to the next door kid who attends a different school.
Lastly, education, ironically, is the route to salvation in this regard. Educate the children to the extent that they appreciate their neighbour and also don't view religion as the basis for any prejudice................................. that unfortunately is a long term dream and one that is unlikely to prosper in the light of certain parental guidance.
-
Seeing Gerry Baker score 10 goals in one game was pretty special!
Ian Ferguson
in The Rumour Mill
Posted
Goalscorer in a cup final or not................... No thanks.