bazil85
-
Posts
10,444 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by bazil85
-
-
16 minutes ago, Sonny said:
What if Baird, Davis and MacKenzie all get injured - maybe we should sign 3 CDs instead of one? Davis had one long term injury with us from which he has made a full recovery. Baird has never been injured with us. Gary Mac has had a couple of injuries but is now fit. And we have 3 other players all capable of playing in CD. And we can make emergency loan like we did with McCart and save a wage for better use. So we are well covered.
You say that like it's complete madness to have four CB options at a club
until three weeks ago we had five.
Davis has had two long-term injuries in three years, can't play on all pitches in the Championship and I've lost count of the number of injuries Mac has had. It's also an area of the pitch where this season we've picked up most suspensions and historically clubs pick up most yellow/ red cards. If we get one injury then we run the risk of only having two natural CB on the pitch with none on the bench. I simply think another option would relieve that worry and is more important than having Reilly on the park and Sutton, Mullan and maybe one other striker warming the bench.
If you're happy with that risk or to count on players like Irvine (10 minutes of football in three months) and Eckersley (Injured and also injury prone) who aren't natural CB players then that's fine. But to make it sound like it's crazy to think a new CB should be a priority over a striker when we have four options for one space seems a lot stranger to me. I don't think we're all covered, yes the emergency loan is an option but you run the risk of a player coming in and not gelling with the team in the way a CB is more likely to do if he's been regularly training at the club.
for me I'd be happy if we brought in both a new striker and a CB but I think there's a pretty strong argument for CB being more of a priority.
-
9 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:
The dome is down.
Weather related.
Let the rabid slavering begin...
I don't think there will be. I think it's been pretty well cleared up that names like 'All Weather' aren't appropriate when attached to things like the dome or artificial pitches. Not sure who it was that ever attached the expression.
-
1 hour ago, Sonny said:
We do what we did two months ago - we get an emergency loan.
And if Davis or McKenzie end up out for the rest of the season?
I'd much rather have a player in training with the squad that could be called on. Talk of another striker when we only really play with one out and out and have Mullen, Sutton and Smith (who can play as lone striker).
Seems strange to me we would want four players for one position but are happy with three players (two of which are known to be injury prone) for two positions.
-
Just now, pod said:
Why did we sign him.
-
5 minutes ago, Drew said:
Irvine can play centre half if called upon, as can Eckersley as far as I can recall.
Yeah I believe that's right but I would be a lot more comfortable with an out and out CB available to us. Especially with Irvine not playing much recently. Imagining the situation where Mac is out and something happens to Davis/ Baird for a prolonged period of time. Wouldn't be the best. Going from five CB to three, imagine it must be something on JR radar.
-
12 hours ago, Dave The Buddie said:
I would say our transfer dealings are finished with. We have strengthened with a holding midfielder and a wide player and a striker in Mullen. Two areas that we could have done with strengthening is a holding midfielder and wide player IMO.
Im chuffed with our squad. We have a great balance and strength in depthSurely they'll bring in another center back? We only have three at the club right now, one can't play on artificial pitches and ones made of glass.
-
13 hours ago, turrabuddie said:
Agree. But i would still be happy to see a forward. Hypolyte or (the much maligned/hated) Quitongo.
I know many on here would be against both, however, I strongly believe our management team would improve both, giving us something different up front.He may improve Hypolyte yes but it's pretty difficult to improve a player like Quitongo who's injured more than he's fit (injured again right now) also Morton have him under contract to the summer, at the very best we'd get him on a pre-contract and have to pay the full compensation owed (roughly £120k according to sources) that's a massive risk for me for a player so injury prone that's only had one good season then not really been at the races, unless he's turning it on against us.
There's no way Morton or their fans would stand for us taking him right now unless the money was really good. We don't have that money to spend/ waste on an injured player. TBH I think people need to drop the Jai Quitongo chat, it's no happening.
-
8 minutes ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:
Really glad I joined this brilliant interviews on a regular basis full match games if you want to watch it brilliant value. Would like to see the training ground and a bit of what goes on there .
They're going to do that eventually but apparently it'll be broadcast after the watershed
-
10 hours ago, st jock said:
If SMISA vote against the funding for the ladies team, what happens?
The money is saved like the excess money would be saved this quarter. It will either be able to form part of another option short-term, long-term or put to the buyout cost.
-
7 hours ago, Ronnie said:8 hours ago, djchapsticks said:Ryan Flynn is well known. A player at our level with 200 appearances at English league 1 is about as big as we can realistically hope for.
It's on a par with McGinn last season.I know who Ryan Flynn is that is 1 big signing imo but Mark Hill can't be described in the same manner that was why I wondered why McManus described them as "2 Big Signings" maybe later today we will be surprised at who actually signs.
Really? Was he not getting on the Hamilton bench (In the SP) at 14 and just signed a new long-term Celtic contract? One of the most exciting young prospects in Scotland, when you think how Maggenis is playing at the same age if he's anything similar performance wise I'd have to side with McManus on his wording. Brilliant option.
-
1 hour ago, shull said:
How do you know I haven't
Good point well made...
-
I'm a lot more confident of a good season in the SP next year (if we get over the line) than I was in 2005/06 season. Looking back on 99/00 as well I think we're in a better position. Yes the 99/00 squad was electric all season but there weren't many SP quality players in that squad as I think we have right now. Financially I also think we're in a better position with the potential to be in a much better position should crowds continue to rise and with the prized assets we currently have at the club/ have with sell-on clauses elsewhere.
I'm confident if we went up we would soon put rightful teams in that league behind us. (Ross County, St Johnstone and Hamilton for starters) and cement ourselves as a top flight team for many years to come. Hopefully will be an exciting spell at the club and over the next 10-15 years we'll see more success, crowds returning and some positive celebrations.
-
31 minutes ago, shull said:
Get yourself signed back up, you know it makes sense.
-
On 13/01/2018 at 10:53 PM, gc_SMFC said:
Bit of a bump to this thread.
I hope Smisa are willing to put funds towards the ladies team without the need for a vote. I hope the men's teams are also contributing to them as well.If SMISA are putting their own raised funds to the ladies team that’s fine by me without a vote but I think they’re doing it right in regards to three month spend. No aspect of that money should be spent without a vote IMO
-
58 minutes ago, FTOF said:
I saw that in the PDE.
You can't really blame Buchanan, with Baird, Davis and MacKenzie all certain starters before him.
Yeah, there's get out clauses on some player contracts for lack of appearances and probably wanted to go. Imagine he's had something lined up and we've offered a mutual termination at a reduced compensation cost. No big loss, couple decent games but a few absolute shockers as well.
-
13 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
Wasnt lumping you in with it Baz, you make your points without the silliness of adult men anonymously (they think) firing abuse.
i know we dont agree, but as i said originally and throughout there isnt a player who contested/rejected properly an agreed contract extension been made to see out that extension, or been ruled against in court for not doing so. I sincerely hope we dont witness it at first hand, but if Davis stays fit and in form he will get offers i doubt we can match.
edit: think it makes sense to debate this (if we do further) with just you Baz, let the empty vessels do their stuff.
I think we've done it to death.
-
46 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said:
Thats what they always resort to, endorsed by the webman.
the whole idea of a forum is to debate, unfortunately as we have learned since the coming of online forums people feel they can freely abuse someone they dont know, and most likely would never address that person, in that manner, face to face.
Maybe i just dont get it? You know how big & clever it is to abuse people you've never met! Hopefully i never will get it.
I feel you're lumping a lot of us in on this comment. Don't get me wrong I'm completely confident in saying you're talking nonsense with your claim about contract extensions and have contradicted yourself in your posts. I would also be absolutely fine saying the same thing to a person face to face because let's be honest, it is rubbish.
I wouldn't consider that 'bullying' behavior though... If you do, well I can only apologise.
-
1 hour ago, shull said:
Just because you disagree with him
No one disagrees with Lord Pityme on this point. We're simply pointing out what he's saying is wrong...
-
Just now, Soctty said:10 hours ago, djchapsticks said:The LPM fiasco all started when he fell out with SMISA, he's been on a year long crusade against the club since then.
To be fair, he was also a gargantuan bellend long before that...
Good point, well made.
-
I also can't believe this thread is still going. I've watched 140 year old football clubs die quicker
-
13 hours ago, stlucifer said:
While there might have been those who backed Jack all the way, I was certainly not one of them. I openly said he was NOT the right person and had done nothing to warrant my vote of confidence. Shows you I'm sometimes as much a walloper as others on other threads.
At least you put your hands up, others generally dig their heals in
-
2 hours ago, stlucifer said:
You said, and I quote it above, that it would be illegal for the club to trigger the clause. You agreed with me later that it was legitimate if both parties agreed it at the outset. Two entirely different scenarios.
Correct, he’ll come back with some word play spin no doubt. Dug himself a hole and to proud to admit he’s wrong. His response to you was that it was word for word what he said which is baffling.
-
4 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:
Wrong again Baz, never once said 'adding a contract extension' is illegal, but repeatedly said, as yet, in the UK no player who properly rejected a UCE has ever been taken to court to be made to fulfil it.
however if you check the piece i posted above, if a player rejects it in the correct timeframe it becomes unenforceable as its deemed a restriction to trade. Please try like me to keep a consistent line.
One example where a player has rejected a UCE during his contract, that has been agreed by club and player when the contract had been signed, in UK law and not been made to fulfil it? You going to come back to the unrelated Webster ruling again?
You love moving a goalpost. You have stated ‘including something doesn’t make it legal’ and ‘UEO are unenforceable in UK law’ so what you’re basically saying now is, if a player rejects it when the contract is signed, they don’t have to fulfil it? No sh*t, it wouldn’t be in the contract then. Your arguments are as clear as dishwater so you can make ridiculous claims like club controlled contract extensions can’t be enforced in uk law even after both parties have signed a contract agreeing to that clause . Then you sneak and squirm around with word games when people very clearly show you evidence it’s nonsense with rubbish like if it’s been mutually agreed when the contract has been signed that’s fine. Oh Lordy Lordy Lordy I hate to break it to you but that’s what a contract agreement is. you have lost this argument time to put your hands up to it.
You’ll no doubt come back with ‘show me an example’ your previous attachment and the many cases where contract extensions have been triggered show there are no examples, because no players are taking clubs to court. Do you know why? Because they are not illegal/ are enforced by UK law . same reason players don’t take clubs to court very often to break standard contracts... they’re also enforced.
I did read over it and was familiar with pretty much every aspect of it. There is no information that backs up your wording that contract extensions controlled by clubs ‘are not enforced by UK law’ the restriction of trade timeframe are completely not relevant in a one year contract with a second year option (two year contract that can be terminated after one year) your wee link actually validated a lot of what I had said about early termination so thanks for sharing
-
9 hours ago, Lord Pityme said:
Thanks for repeating what i said to the letter. See you did understand
That's not even close to what you've been saying lol. You've been saying adding a contract extension clause triggered by the club is illegal. Not that it's legal if such clause is agreed mutually at the time the contract was signed.
What absolute rubbish. haha
January 2018 Transfer Window
in General St. Mirren Discussion
Posted
Mullan and Sutton available for the one striker role. If we went two up front we have Mullan Sutton, Smith and Reilly with likely first choices being Smith and Reilly. Well covered up front.
Eckersley is injured, much more effective at LB and also injury and suspension prone. We have three CB options for two roles and others that can cover at a push (Irvine has had very little match time as well). We have four ST options for the one up front option JR prefers. We also now have two additional MF options for JR to play about with behind Reilly if he continues with one up front.