lzreid

I know, but it's Friday and I'm at work so you can shut up and let me hope

I've just checked the Players page on the website and there's only around eleven players there I'd consider 'seniors' with a fair few youths as well. Hammil for some reason is not on the page (12) so with 2 loans (14) we're either counting Laidlaw or must be about to make a signing. Please God let it be a right back with the initials CW.

That'll be the same Stephen Simmons who played for QotS already. But aye, actually, I would have happily kept him. He's an essentially destructive midfielder who'll play deep. Unlike many of them though he actually tries to play the game and keep possession. If he has the right level and type of support, he'll prove to be a good signing. Without that you'll get no benefit from him.

We could have used the money to clear some debt certaily and, viewed wth hindsight, that would probably have been a better use of the money than an ill fated shot at promotion. From the club's perspective though, a couple of hundred thousand off the debt would have been a boon but would have solved our problems, or even significantly reduced them? I'm not sure it would have and I can fully appreciate why they took a gamble on maintaining the budget in the hope of either another cup run or an unlikely shot at promotion. I'd suggest that we spent less last year than the season before. As you say, we brought in; McBride Baird Dyer McNeil We lost; Amaya O'Connor Gatheussi Shields D. Smith K. Smith Armstrong Russell I've left Mole off the list because to all intents and purposes he stayed but there's a difference of 4 players and some of those we lost (Gatheussi, Armstrong, K. smith) were players on loan or dropping from the SPL and were replaced with presumably cheaper options from the Second Div. / Third Div. / and a First Div. youth player. Now, whether that's a problem is another matter. I'm not completely clued into the finances down Starks Park way but the 'soft' loans that the cup money was used to pay off would probably explain the budget differences. Now, soft loans are a pretty shoddy way of running the club if they happen year on year on year, but they weren't. They appear to have been used in order to try and help us consolidate in the First and have since been paid back. Not great financial management but not awful either.

Which was essentially the point I was trying to make. The cup money simply meant that we didn't have to make the cuts last year but now they're unavoidable. My problem was that a few people have mentioned that this year's cuts are somehow proof that we overpsent last year..

Well no, last season's budget was based on having more money than expected actually in the bank and when that money ran out and wasn't replaced the budget was adjusted accordingly. We got a chunky cheque from the SFA at the end of the season 09/10. That money then went into the pot for 10/11 and has now run out. The budget for 11/12 has, therefore, been cut. And reasonably so.

No large end of season cheque from the SFA would be my guess. it's entirely possible that using the Scottish Cup prize money we were able to break even - or even make a small loss - on last season and that the massive budget cuts are simply a reflection of this. Indeed, I'm fairly certain I recall it being made clear at the begining of last season that the cup money was all that had prevented the board from making the cuts last season. I'm not closing my eyes to the precarious financial position we're in and until the accoutns are released we'll not know for definite but I can also see reasons not to panic or to accus the board of massive incompetence.

What might also be nice, is an acceptance amongst fans that what constitutes a realistic budget, can vary dramatically from year to year, that massive budget cuts are not necessarily a sign of previous incompetence.

I'm certain that I remember either Somerville saying the same thing in the press at the turn of the year as well. It might have added a little too much pressure on the players but I'd also rather have a Chairman being brutally honest about the clubs future spending abilities. As for last years budget, once again I can remember Somerville saying at the close of 09/10 that only the Scottish Cup Money had prevented similar cuts from taking effect last season and that a portion of the money would be used to fund a larger squad than we could otherwise afford. I'm not suggesting that we got the sums bang on but nor am I throwing myself off a roof with the worry about it.

It is Laidlaw aye. It's not a bad line up at all to be honest provided the RB is a decent player. There have to be quesions about whether McBride can start every game and perform well enough to push us forward. I'm a fan but I'm not sure that consistency is his strong point. That said, playing week in / week out might do the trick for him. Whether the SPL loanees are any use, we'll have to discover but I do hope at least one of them has some pace.

The Courier clarifies it as a PCA he's signed until the end of the month for the very reason he's mentioned.

I have no doubt that Tadé could do a job in the SPL for someone. St Johnstone would be shooting themselves in the foot though, they desperately need a goalscorer and that ain't gonna be Tadé.

Personally, I welcome both Baird and McGlynn looking to further their career - anyone content to be in the First Division isn't particularly welcome in my opinion. The downside, of course, is that these statements can quite often read as a desire to not be at the club rather than in the league.

I think you two are getting Murray and Baird confused.

That seems like quite the assumption to me. He wouldn't be the first player to hanker publicly after a move only to find no real interest. In fact, I'll be surprised if anyone is interested in him. He's a hell of an important player for us and the manner in which he slots into our style of play makes him a standout for us that I desperately don't want to lose. For an outsider looking in though, he's scored only 13 goals at a lower level than he aspires to, only has a year left on his contract and will almost defiitely be available for free this time next year. It make no sense to stump up a fee for him.

Why?

Well, its good to see the pair of them working towards their badges as i think both will turn out to be relatively good managers.

I can't say I'm thrilled at the idea of being skint and using a group of youth players but likewise, I'm not overly bothered by it either. If we can limit the use of them to one or two per game, we'll survive comfortably and that's surely the only aim for this season.

He was and we didn't get any money for him if I recall. That said, I agree with you and I'd rather have had 5 years of Dargo playing for us than 2 years and £20 stuck in an envelope and addressed to the chairman. It's also heartening to see that a player can leave Raith Rovers and stop scoring rather than join and stop.

I did. He certainly wouldn't have been my first choice to even sit on the bench - and neither would Jamie Mackie. That said, if either of them had been required to play every week, I'm certain the rest of the squad could have adjusted to cover any problems. Indeed, I expect that this'll happen next year too and, providing we only have to play one or two of them I think we'll be comfortable.

We're already struggling, every game is gonna have a bench of youths. We're one injury or one suspension away from playing a youngster. Are they good enough? Probably not, but then, they'll have to be and that's that. For what it's worth, I'd have been confident of survival or better even if we had had to play Wedderburn or Mackie in the majority of games. The rest of the team would have been able to pick up the slack and they'll be good enough to do so again.

Hmmm, I'm happy with the elevation of Laidlaw to the first team along with the other youths.We talk persistently about the need to develop youth and bring through our own and that's what we've now got the opportunity to do so - well, that's we're required to do but the end product is the same and we won't go bust doing it.

Clearly, McGlynn and Simmons had a tiff. Do you reckon that it became clear Williamson was the gaffer's favourite?

Since a few folk seem annoyed by the trivial nature of the situation I reckon we should start up some rumours. I'll start; Dave Somerville is off to start a brothel in Nairobi and will be selling baby panthers to fund it.

I reckon the Chairman taking a 2 month sabbatical is someting that people should know. Seems to have been a bit overhyped but it's pleasant to be kept informed.