Jump to content

The Queen of the South thread


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, RUSTY1111 said:


Brownlie was almost Beckenbauer like as he sauntered forward with the ball.

You're obviously deliberately employing a bit of comic hyperbole there, but I've seen others comment favourably on his bringing the ball out of defence.  Someone even mentioned him apparently having more idea of how to use the ball now.  

I'm afraid I don't see it at all.  A couple of times on Saturday, he strode forward with it at his feet, looked typically alarmed and played a poor pass.  He also made a mess of a decent headed chance at goal.

He's improved a little, but as observed elsewhere, remains culpable for many of the goals we concede.  In my view, this improvement needs to continue, perhaps even accelerate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the last 3 games, Brownlie played a major part in Dundee U's first goal and a minor part in their second. He played a major part in Hibs goal on Saturday by turning his back instead of trying to block the shot. A defender is there first and foremost to prevent goals and he has played a major role in costing us 2, effectively losing us 3 points in the process. And that is just in the last 3 games.

He is also part of a defence that can't defend set pieces. He is part of a defence that has conceded more goals that anybody else apart from Ayr and St.Mirren. And, if it isn't him who is responsible for this, and it isn't Hamill, Dowie, Robinson, Marshall or Higgins (all of whom seem to be rated highly by most) then who the hell is responsible? Or, are all the rest the problem and if it wasn't for him we would have conceded even more?

Are we now saying that conceding goals doesn't matter as long as you play one reasonable pass in a game that led to nothing?Wow. If Brownlie has improved, but is still playing a major part in conceding goals, what the hell was he like before?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/01/2017 at 16:26, JTulip said:

Maybe skyline could confirm if the club has or has not reclaimed any shares from any shareholders since the last share issue ran out. 

I know you busy skyline and maybe missed this but when you get a chance maybe you could answer. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/01/2017 at 16:26, JTulip said:

Maybe skyline could confirm if the club has or has not reclaimed any shares from any shareholders since the last share issue ran out. 

 

1 hour ago, JTulip said:

I know you busy skyline and maybe missed this but when you get a chance maybe you could answer. Thanks.

I didn't miss it. I ignored it as I thought it was an inappropriate route to ask a legal question but since you've repeated it, and I've confirmed with the Board that they are happy for it to be answered publicly, the answer is "no". The club has not reclaimed any shares from untraceable shareholders. There would need to be costly national advertisements to head down that route and any funds raised by doing so would need to be turned over to the Crown Office anyway so it is pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully with all the talk of Commons and stokes returning to Hibs we could maybe get a a winger and forward on loan. Let's hope Lennon gave Naysmith his phone number on Sat! Sure there will be one or two willing to go out on loan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

You're obviously deliberately employing a bit of comic hyperbole there, but I've seen others comment favourably on his bringing the ball out of defence.  Someone even mentioned him apparently having more idea of how to use the ball now.  

I'm afraid I don't see it at all.  A couple of times on Saturday, he strode forward with it at his feet, looked typically alarmed and played a poor pass.  He also made a mess of a decent headed chance at goal.

He's improved a little, but as observed elsewhere, remains culpable for many of the goals we concede.  In my view, this improvement needs to continue, perhaps even accelerate.

You are correct in your thoughts there. I was usurping the mention of Brownlie earlier in the thread. As you say, Darren is improving more this season with his extended run in the team but is far from the finished article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Danny has been disappointing but I think much of that has been down to him
being deployed on the left.

Personally if that is the only position that Naysmith considers him for then I would rather keep him in reserve on the bench.

Danny is a better player than he is showing us but this constant back tracking to support Marshall ( when we have 3 other central midfielders) is not making good use of him and it leaves Dobbie very isolated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re Brownlie, I raised this as it came up in the after-match reflections of a few of the cognoscenti and suffice to say there was a lack of unanimity on this topic. As we have also seen on this thread. 

My personal view is that he has developed and I would see him in my first 11. I feel that he gets blamed a lot unfairly, but he is not yet the finished article.

I may change my mind before the end of the season...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if this has been discussed but I'm just reading that your board are set to reject the proposal for a fans rep to be on the board as a director or even as a non-voting seat. What's the reasoning behind this? Seems an incredibly backwards thing to be doing but I don't have the facts. Are the Queens Trust well represented numbers wise? I'd have thought it would be a no brainer to have the fans voice on the board, even at Dumbarton where our chairman has a burning desire to make things as difficult as possible for fans he has succumbed to letting us a have a seat on the board and it's been for the better.

On the face of it, if I was a Queens fan I would look at it as a kick in the teeth, is anyone bothered?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

Sorry if this has been discussed but I'm just reading that your board are set to reject the proposal for a fans rep to be on the board as a director or even as a non-voting seat. What's the reasoning behind this? Seems an incredibly backwards thing to be doing but I don't have the facts. Are the Queens Trust well represented numbers wise? I'd have thought it would be a no brainer to have the fans voice on the board, even at Dumbarton where our chairman has a burning desire to make things as difficult as possible for fans he has succumbed to letting us a have a seat on the board and it's been for the better.

On the face of it, if I was a Queens fan I would look at it as a kick in the teeth, is anyone bothered?

I'm personally not bothered and don't really think there is a need for it, our Vice Chairman and Director are Queens fans who want whats best for the club.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, spacekid84 said:

I'm personally not bothered and don't really think there is a need for it, our Vice Chairman and Director are Queens fans who want whats best for the club.

 

 

Fair enough. Our chairman is a lifelong Sons fan and I'm sure he wants what's best for the club too, the problem can be that his views on what is best for the club aren't always the best for the club. If it's Queens fans who are the Chairman and Directors then I find it even more strange that they don't want to give the fans a seat on the board. Surely by refusing it sends a message of "we don't need your opinion"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...