zurich_allan

But you're missing the two key points here, or rather misrepresenting what I've said, which isn't difficult to see. 1. It is absolutely not the same as OF arrogance. OF arrogance is that they should beat EVERYONE by 3 or 4 goals. A club with the comparable budget and training facilities / personnel of St Mirren simply should not badly struggle to beat a part time club. Full stop. 2. None of anything that you or anyone else that replied to me addresses the single fundamental issue I was highlighting and stand by; that there was a lack of effort / intensity / urgency, whatever you want to call it, from the majority of our players today. In the last two games that effort was evident, today it wasn't. I really cannot understand anybody who didn't see that unless they are wearing black and white tinted glasses. No, you cannot turn a bad team (such as last season and the first half of this season) into a good team overnight, but you absolutely CAN demand a proper work ethic overnight. It simply wasn't there today.

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. We won because we put the ball in the net once (not counting the disallowed effort), and they didn't. I guarantee you that playing in the same fashion as we did today against Hibs, Falkirk, Raith, hell even Livingston who are below us, and we would have been beaten. Yes you can only beat who's in front of you, but a full time club with St Mirren's profile should be thumping a part time club such as Dumbarton by 3 or more goals, not limping to a 1-0 victory and fortunate to achieve it. I am NOT one of the boo boys on this forum, I give credit when it's due and have stood up for the team and players against those boo boys many times, but the lack of effort and passion evident today is, in my opinion, unacceptable for our team.

I get that in general, and I agree that was the case with the past two home games. Today though, the only reason we won that game is because Dumbarton are terrible. There was no grafting today, no pressing, barely any tackling, not much tracking, and barely any effort. At least 7 or 8 of our starting 11 looked lazy and lethargic for nearly the whole game.

Think my friend got it right when he said that the whole game looked like a preseason friendly. Nobody bothering to press opposing players, hardly a tackle, and complete lack of both precision and creativity. Really terrible game. 3 points and Goodwin getting a run out were the only positives that could possibly be taken. I hope Rae went through them like a ton of bricks in the changing room after the final whistle. Edit: One more positive to be fair, I thought Baird was outstanding today.

Forever to be known as one of the central figures that facilitated inaction from the international community surrounding the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. Not sorry to know he's gone.

Not really due to form not being guaranteed or predictable. One thing the club would be able to do is sue him for damages due to the breach of contract that he caused meaning that they have wasted the money they spent buying him and haven't had the full return on their investment. The precedent for this was set by the Fiorentina / Mutu saga.

There might be some sort of minor clauses relating to termination of contract and compensation, but there can't be anything relating to him being a sellable asset as the player himself would have to agree to any move whilst he was still under contract, and as such a club is never guaranteed the ability to sell any player.

The only two players who had pass marks from the entire squad, in my opinion, up until the point Goodwin got injured, were him and Mallan. If Goodwin, when fit, isn't immediately back in the team I would be concerned and want to hear a legitimate answer as to why.

Maybe I'm unusual in that I really don't care either way. As with most on here I've played on grass, old sandy astroturf, more modern astrograss, 3G, blaes, concrete, and indoor. As long as you have a decent warm up / kickabout before the game kicks off you just get used to the surface, the run and bounce of the ball, and play accordingly. I personally think it's a bit of a non-issue.

Aye, it's a labour of love...

Hue shouldn't be crying about Linda!

I'm going to clarify a couple of things here. As already mentioned in the thread, and as the BBC confirmed years ago (all this nonsense came out in 2007), he wasn't directly paid as such, a fee was simply lumped in with his salary. He NEVER asked to be paid, he NEVER tried to negotiate a fee, and in 2007 when he was informed he asked for the fee to be stopped, which it was. The last time he was given the fee was in 2006 - a decade ago. And since then he presented the show 8 times with no fee. Honestly, it's not even difficult to get this information, confirmed directly from the BBC, so just stop all the bullshit.

Let's say he spent £400k a year for each of the past 45 years (really not that unrealistic), that would mean he was averaging approximately £2,000,000 per year income after tax, probably closer to £3,500,000 per year before tax. Not too shabby considering he barely toured for most of the past 20 years and lived off of royalties alone for a large chunk of that time too.

Naw, Ronnie Wood will outlive us all!

The Miami Vice film from 5 or 6 years ago with Colin Farrell. It was a massive disappointment. Boring with no real plot, and just generally crap all round.

Was a good win yesterday too, Stoke are a dangerous team that have the potential to turn anyone over on the day, so a 3-0 scoreline was brilliant. I really hope Leicester can keep it up. Even if they were to lose 6 (which I can't see them doing) of the last 15 games chances are they would still be in the champions league spots.

This isn't quite true. The fee for licensed premises isn't fixed, it's based on a combination of the rateable value of the premises which differs hugely from pub to pub, and also depends on discounts for taking on certain beers etc. For smaller premises the lowest possible cost is something like £125 per month plus one off setup fees.

I'm reluctant to jump into this thread again, but just wanted to add a slightly different but linked dimension. I asked very briefly if the undersoil heating was on directly after the postponement announcement was made on Facebook, but NOT for the purpose of berating the club in the ridiculous manner the OP and a couple of other posters have here. I was genuinely asking out of interest and out of hope that the club hadn't just lost a lot of money in spite of a huge effort (which everyone involved should be praised for). What I mean, and I could be wrong, is that I was of the impression that undersoil heating is only a requirement in the premier league, but not in the championship, and a couple of days before the game I could foresee the scenario playing out exactly as it did. I can understand the effort the club went to to get the game on, and everyone involved was very unlucky with the timing the snow came down, but I still can't help but wonder if maybe it might have been wiser and less costly to not use the heating given the forecast of heavy snow, and avoid the thousands of pounds loss to the club that resulted. Just to be clear, I'm not making a rabid and faux-annoyed rant that I've seen from those mentioned, just wondering if given the rules for this league we might have done things a little differently. I don't think there is an easy answer though, as I do think the board were in a 'damned if they do, damned if they don't' situation, so no criticism from my perspective. One thing though - I completely agree that the negative comments about our groundskeeping staff are completely out of order considering the phenomenal work they put in all year round.

Brilliant show from the club.

Yes they were. I was sitting in the queue of cars waiting to get out, and saw probably one in every two cars slow on approach to the two stewards at the gate, put their window down, and get reimbursed. I was one of them, and it wasn't even an issue. Of course if people just fired out at (inappropriately high) speed as I saw several do 'just in case the stewards step in and let one of the other queues of cars begin to go before I get out' as it's plain to see many do every week, then they wouldn't have got their money back.

Game changed completely when we went 4-4-2 at the end. Should have played that way from the start, disappointing for a cup game with a negative formation from the start.

Make that 2-0...

I hope Rae realises this is a cup match, 1-0 down with 20 minutes to go and still only one up front. Better to go down 3-0 while having a go with 2 up top than to defend a narrow goal difference when we've not looked like scoring all night!!

First Saints game I would have went to was around 1985 / 1986, but I don't remember what one specifically. First real memory I have is a game from the late 80s (can't remember who it was against), where a guy was sitting in front of us with his 4 or 5 year old son, and kept pointing to our keeper and proclaiming "See that man in the goal, he's Campbell Money, the best goalie in Scotland!". He must have repeated it half a dozen times as the match went on. It would have been fine if not for the fact that Les Fridge was in goals for us that day...

This is the problem. I used to love Borgia, spent 3 or 4 Christmas eve nights in there along with a crowd of us a number of years ago. Used to go in for lunch quite a lot too when I worked in Paisley. The last 5 or 6 years though, I found it harder and harder to persuade my wife to go in as she thought it was dirty and run down. To me it was just a bit shabby, but then I've been in a lot of older proper pubs, so it didn't bother me, but a lot of others I know and used to frequent Borgia with thought the same as my wife. I wonder how many others, had a little more care been taken over the interior, might have been more regular visitors the past few years.