simplythebest 0 Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 whos at fault then mate, green for not letting ally spend more? neil murray for finding ally shite players? or ally for signings those players not good enough to beat qos and inverness? Management and the players for not living up to their potential, I question our scouting plenty but the signings were fine in terms of what we could realistically expect (Stella aside since we've seen literally nothing of him). I may like Green but that isn't why i'm happy he didn't let Ally spend more. If Murray had reigned Advocaat in we may not be as lowly as we are now. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuznetsov 0 Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Management and the players for not living up to their potential, I question our scouting plenty but the signings were fine in terms of what we could realistically expect (Stella aside since we've seen literally nothing of him). I may like Green but that isn't why i'm happy he didn't let Ally spend more. If Murray had reigned Advocaat in we may not be as lowly as we are now. i dont like either of those men and i believe you have a point there. i think quite a few of the new signings have been garbage mate, we havnt even seen stella so its hard to comment on him. we didnt get a chance to see matt mckay much and he was the ozzie player of the year so i dont think not getting a game means they are rubbish. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 i dont like either of those men and i believe you have a point there. i think quite a few of the new signings have been garbage mate, we havnt even seen stella so its hard to comment on him. we didnt get a chance to see matt mckay much and he was the ozzie player of the year so i dont think not getting a game means they are rubbish. Some have been garbage but I can't say I thought the signings seemed poor at the time, certainly not for our position. Ian Black a Scottish Cup winner? Sandaza 18 goals last season? Even the foreign players getting stick, you have Cribari with 100 odd Serie A games, Faure a winner of a youth tournament with France, Argyriou first team experience with a top team in Greece. All their track records seemed to suggest they'd be good for us IMO, not for being back in the top flight perhaps but that was always at least three years away. I just feel the management haven't got the best out of the squad at times and the players themselves have also underperformed, with the youngsters being most encouraging. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 for you maybe but if my club are spending more on wages than every other club in the country with one exception then i expect more than a part time league title. if the league was our only aim why are we paying players wages they wouldnt even get in the spl? What does it matter - we arent paying the 30-35 million on wages that Celtic are that guarantees them every league and major trophy for the foreseeable future... as you yourself said earlier today. Or are you saying we should have been paying the same as them ? In the bottom tier ? to "maybe" win a cup or two ? Because what you said earlier is that we would need to spend the same wages as them to compete with them. So which is it to be ? Pay the same wages and compete with them in two cups and possibly head to financial ruin again, or spend according to the circumstance we currently find ourselves (SFL3) and keep cash held back for future divisions (including the SPL and the cups) ? You cant really have it both ways, at least not the way you put it earlier. Should we be beating ICT and QotS ? Of course we should. Could they have been poor one off results ? Well, I guess you could say that it is two results, but nobody really complained when we pumped Motherwell prior to the ICT defeat. One thing we DO know about this team is that it is presently inconsistent - but I am not sure we should be overly surprised as we do have a number of youngsters in it and they very often lack consistency, both individually and as a team (before you all start.... yes, we should still be pumping the SFL3 teams even with all these youngsters). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuznetsov 0 Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 (edited) What does it matter - we arent paying the 30-35 million on wages that Celtic are that guarantees them every league and major trophy for the foreseeable future... as you yourself said earlier today. Or are you saying we should have been paying the same as them ? In the bottom tier ? to "maybe" win a cup or two ? Because what you said earlier is that we would need to spend the same wages as them to compete with them. So which is it to be ? Pay the same wages and compete with them in two cups and possibly head to financial ruin again, or spend according to the circumstance we currently find ourselves (SFL3) and keep cash held back for future divisions (including the SPL and the cups) ? You cant really have it both ways, at least not the way you put it earlier. Should we be beating ICT and QotS ? Of course we should. Could they have been poor one off results ? Well, I guess you could say that it is two results, but nobody really complained when we pumped Motherwell prior to the ICT defeat. One thing we DO know about this team is that it is presently inconsistent - but I am not sure we should be overly surprised as we do have a number of youngsters in it and they very often lack consistency, both individually and as a team (before you all start.... yes, we should still be pumping the SFL3 teams even with all these youngsters). no, i am not saying that at all, in fact i am amazed you could ask such a stupid question. the competing with celtic talk is for when we are in the same league as them and are battling for the title together. i just answered that above, i thought you would have understood that. expecting us to compete financially with celtic whilst we are in division 3 is ridiculous, not even i expect that. i dont want it both ways, as explained above in bold. why would people complain about beating motherwell, that was a good night for us but a one off and against a team we very rarely have trouble with. the team has less youngsters in it than people like to think. macleod is the only regular starter. mckay and hegarty have had a chance when others have been injured. fleeting appearances for cole, aird and crawford, that is about it. Edited January 14, 2013 by kuznetsov 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuznetsov 0 Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Some have been garbage but I can't say I thought the signings seemed poor at the time, certainly not for our position. Ian Black a Scottish Cup winner? Sandaza 18 goals last season? Even the foreign players getting stick, you have Cribari with 100 odd Serie A games, Faure a winner of a youth tournament with France, Argyriou first team experience with a top team in Greece. All their track records seemed to suggest they'd be good for us IMO, not for being back in the top flight perhaps but that was always at least three years away. I just feel the management haven't got the best out of the squad at times and the players themselves have also underperformed, with the youngsters being most encouraging. sandaza was signed on alleged reputation. the lads on here know i didnt want black before we signed him. poor players have won scottish cups before mate just like poor players can be youth tournament winners. argyriou had 13 games in 2 years at athens mate. track records mean nothing, we as a club should know that better than most with the amount of well paid, cracking track record flops we have had over the years. in my opinion the youngsters have been the only shining light this season. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 the summer was difficult. we had about 4 weeks to sign players to see us through 2 seasons. you can make equally good cases for us spending to much or to little in the summer but the truth is it was a difficult one get right. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuznetsov 0 Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 the summer was difficult. we had about 4 weeks to sign players to see us through 2 seasons. you can make equally good cases for us spending to much or to little in the summer but the truth is it was a difficult one get right. would you not expect our club and scouting team to have some sort of network or database of players? some of the signings screamed panic and came across as lazy recruitment. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,270 Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 would you not expect our club and scouting team to have some sort of network or database of players? some of the signings screamed panic and came across as lazy recruitment. Go back and look at the time line of when we actually had a league to play in and when the end of the transfer window was , it was a handful of days . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuznetsov 0 Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Go back and look at the time line of when we actually had a league to play in and when the end of the transfer window was , it was a handful of days . we were given 6 weeks to build our squad, and that was after we knew where we would be playing. plenty time. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.