Alan Kernaghan wasn't far off getting us relegated, so I'd say he has done a great job, nurturing us into league contenders. People also say he inherited guys like, McDonald, Robertson, and Dixon, which is true, but surely he deserves a bit of credit for how they improved under him, and consequently the big moves they earned?
As I have already said, we would have been promoted with last seasons points total if it wasn't for Hamlton, arguably the best first division side promoted for years. Any other season, those points would have been enough and we would all be hailing him.
As I have already said, we would have been promoted with last seasons points total if it wasn't for Hamlton, arguably the best first division side promoted for years. Any other season, those points would have been enough and we would all be hailing him.
I know being manager of our club can't be easy, but I have to disagree with most of that. First off, relegation was never a threat under Kernaghan. Next, Robertson, McDonald and Dixon would've developed no matter who was in charge. In fact, some may argue they would've done better under superior management. Only McDonald moving on was of benefit to the club. The situation with Dixon last season is a prime example of poor man management. For a while last year, there was also a big question mark over Rae's deployment of the midfield, with McDonald and Robertson at his disposal. I also think a better man would've sorted Swankie's attitude out and got him committed to Dundee. Despite all the shit being spouted about him, I'd take him over Gilhaney every time.
Rae has been given a decent budget every year since he took over, but he has been constantly building a new team, mostly due to his own poor signings. Three times this season we've started a player on a Saturday who only signed on the previous Thursday or Friday. Whilst I crave stability, Rae can't be beyond reproach for the shambles we currently find ourselves in.
