zico

So there wasn’t any needs to even mention that we were a full time club then. You’ve tied yourself up in knots there

I still don't understand how this word is construed as a sectarian slur? The term is used exclusively for supporters of The Rangers (and previously, the now defunct Rangers). The Rangers is not a religious sect. Can someone explain?

A cup win parade through Paisley in May would beat any championship win parade The 1987 celebrations were in a different league

You suggested it here:

There have been a few. Derek Johnstone being the most obvious. Matt Elliott. Chris Sutton was used as a centre half at Norwich City. Paul Hegarty, Jack Copland and John Clark all started out as centre forwards. Even Barry McLaughlin made his Saints debut as a centre forward! John Charles, of Leeds Utd, Juventus and Wales was used as both a centre half and a centre forward. 370 goals in 715 league appearances! Going back further in time, the old Saints centre half, Willie Telfer, was utilised as a centre forward on a number of occasions.

Sutton isn't really an out and out target man. But he would still be a good option to bring on late in a game even alongside a target man when in need of a goal. IMO its good to have at least 2 quality attacking options on the bench and all it takes is an injury or suspension to Sutton, Mullen or 1 of the 3 regular forwards and we'd be down to just 1. I think a new forward is a good idea.

So there isn't any link between being full time and how much effort you give, which you have suggested in your post?

Don’t you want us to go part time though?

Mullen can play as a striker, a no 10 or out wide. He can cover Reilly, Smith & Morgan. A big striker to bring on if chasing the game would be a good option.

My question was: "where did you say that it would be better to bring in a striker than a central defender?" To which you have given a quite stating that they aren't related... thereby proving yourself wrong! No need to apologise!

The OP didn't say there is a priority. Obviously we should try to win both. But if you had to choose, would it be league or cup? Its a hypothetical question. A bit of fun. Wind yer neck in.

Personally, I would be okay with spending another 20 years in this league if we could win the Scottish Cup instead.

And we can all read your posts and take your points. Doesn't mean we have to see them 150 times! You don't own the thread. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Not just you! [emoji14]

No you didn't

where did you say that it would be better to bring in a striker than a central defender in your post I replied to?

Sharing the same opinion as others isn't copying! And what is your point if not to change everyone else's opinion? You have your opinion and I have mine. You think we could do with a central defender more than a striker. What's the point in posting this over and over and over and over again if not to try and get everyone who disagrees with you to agree with you? Pointless.

At this point in time, most folk will go for the league. This is based on the fact that we have a great chance of winning the league but we are very unlikely to win the cup. If the question is that if a fairy god mother were to grant us a guarantee of winning either the league or the cup, which would you choose, then I'd go for the cup. We've won this division 3 times in my lifetime and are on course to win it again. This is despite not actually competing for it in many seasons. And we don't even need to win it to gain promotion. If we don't win promotion this season then we WILL win it again. We've only won the cup once in my lifetime however and in all probability, I'll never see us win it again. Other than winning the top flight, I would trade seeing us win the cup once more for anything. Ask any Hibs fan if he would rather have seen their team win the cup of the league in 2016.

Where did I say that I was trying to change your opinion? You have given your opinion on this thread over and over and over again. I have given my opinion once. What is the point of your reply? To try and change my opinion? Or do you think that you own this thread? I disagree with everything you have said in your reply. I'm assuming that JR is looking to bring in someone who is capable of being a first choice striker or at least challenge to be first choice. A new striker can be a game changer from the bench. In my opinion, we can get a better standard of central defender on emergency loan than we can attract as permanent 4th choice - and we don't need to pay his wages until we need him.

Unless we are going to sign a central defender who is better than Davis or Baird then there is no reason to sign another central defender. If one of the central defenders is injured then Eckerskey has shown that he is a more than capable stop gap. If the new central defender is to basically be 4th choice then we would probably be able to get someone of better quality on emergency loan than we would as a permanent 4th choice signing. The other advantage of an emergency loan is that we only need to pay the wages if and when we bring him in. The reason for needing 4 central defenders at the start of the season was that Davis had a long term injury. So we effectively went into the season with 3 fit central defenders. When we had a crisis then Eckersley went into central defence and when that situation worsened we signed McCart. The difference now is that we have 3 fit central defenders. As for the striker situation, this is different IMO. Strikers are regularly utilised from the bench, central defenders aren’t. Strikers from the bench can be game changers. A new striker could challenge Reilly and Smith for a starting position. If Morgan is injured then Smith can move wide and a new striker provides additional cover. A big striker in particular provides a game changing option. Managers generally do not change or alter central defensive partnerships if they are working, particularly during a game. If the choice is between a new striker or a new central defender then it’s obvious that a new striker is the best option.