Valentino Bolognese

That one stat doesn't really tell the picture of the season for us or for the lack of quality down the bottom of the league.  We were above Aberdeen for a period of time and a long way ahead of Hibs and Motherwell, to have lost that ground most certainly makes it feel like an under achievement.  Does saying we have more points than last season make it any better? Not for me.

I'd rather not see Goss there, tbh. Hes not going to be here next season and has made the team worse every time hes played. Hes clearly a good footballer, but he just doesn't fit in.

I was in the main stand in line with Foster when he it the ball in. My thoughts are the time were that both both the finish and the assist were fantastic. I don't think the quality of the ball in comes across on the telly. The angle of the finish is really impressive. 
Goal of the night would have been Kennedy's shot immediately before his goal, keeper did very well there. 
Kane's swing-and-a-miss when he was totally unmarked in the box was horrific though. The sitters that Watt and him have missed this year have been ridiculous. 

I was in the main stand in line with Foster when he it the ball in. My thoughts are the time were that both both the finish and the assist were fantastic. I don't think the quality of the ball in comes across on the telly. The angle of the finish is really impressive. 
Goal of the night would have been Kennedy's shot immediately before his goal, keeper did very well there. 
Kane's swing-and-a-miss when he was totally unmarked in the box was horrific though. The sitters that Watt and him have missed this year have been ridiculous. 

I was in the main stand in line with Foster when he it the ball in. My thoughts are the time were that both both the finish and the assist were fantastic. I don't think the quality of the ball in comes across on the telly. The angle of the finish is really impressive. 
Goal of the night would have been Kennedy's shot immediately before his goal, keeper did very well there. 
Kane's swing-and-a-miss when he was totally unmarked in the box was horrific though. The sitters that Watt and him have missed this year have been ridiculous. 

Thanks. That's a lot of time for Danny to not be showing any real signs of improvement IMO (admittedly with a lot of late subs). 

Some fair questions.... Here's my opinions for what they are worth.
1. I think any club has the right to aim higher than their station and so do the fans, ultimately we have achieved fantastic success for a club with our budget over the past ten seasons and it can be easy to forget that the tip six is not a god-given right. At the same time this season it looks like our chairman has fully backed the gaffer in the market. We had a very good summer and winter window and added some real quality names. We also have one of the most promising youngsters I've ever seen in a Saints top... Add it all together and I must say I thought we would surprise everyone and comfortably get into the top six.
2. Tommy tends to be results driven. His safety first mentality has served him very well in the past and the truth is will most likely always get him enough points to pass the 10th or above minimum target. I believe a HUGE aspect of our poorer play is the fact he insists on playing a central midfielder that is poor when we are in possession (many totally disagree with me and see the major benefits that Murray Davidson can bring to the side). I'd argue the biggest loss to our side over the last couple seasons has been Chris Millar- his ability to take a ball in tight situations and help our defenders make a simple pass was a huge part of our game. There is certain players Tommy really trusts and I believe they let him down at times with poor performances.
3. MOH is a player he has worked with before and is capable (when fit) of being a very good option for us upfront or on the wing. He has pace and if he can reproduce old form will be a major addition.
Goss was an attempt at bringing in a player that can retain possession and pick a pass. He may well be that player but is in and out the side and it's hard to tell if he is a good addition for the long term.
Bell was a back-up signing.
4. If a young player proves he is up to the task Tommy will play them. Jason Kerr and Stevie May are the prime example of that. I do believe Liam Gordon is ready to play every week and with Joe's form I'd like to see that happen starting Wednesday. Give him a chance to stake his claim for next season as our starting CB. I don't watch the reserves but from what I hear no one else seems to be better than what we already have. We have quite a large squad with established pros- there is always alternate options.
5. Maybe they ain't good enough or maybe Tommy views it as too much of a risk.
6. 101 reasons. Ultimately Perth has proven time after time they will only turn up on glory days- the rest of the time the majority have other things they want to do with their time. I honestly believe a saints team playing free flowing football and getting in amongst the European places would still not see the attendance go up much.
7. Just the way it is.... I personally wouldn't be calling for his head unless we were relegated. I can't think of a single name that I would want to replace him that I 100% believe would be better than what we have. I have family that are Charlton fans and attended games when they were calling for Alan Curbishleys head..... They needed to take the next step up.... They got rid and we all know what happened there. I try not to let a run of results turn my opinion one way or the other- I prefer to take a longer term view. The squad we have is decent, it just needs rebalanced a little in the summer.

I didn't realise that changing manager was guaranteed to bring exciting football. If I'd known that I'd have signed up to the Tommy Out Club ages ago. Silly me.
Maybe we could bring in Neil McCann, he played good football apparently.
The idea that fans that can't be bothered supporting the team during the most successful prolonged spell in the club's history will come flocking back if we pass the football a bit better is as hilarious as it is naive.

Maybe already seen, but 100% confirmed on Saints TV.
 

Good stuff, thanks. Apparently relatives have already been informed that I'll be watching so they'll have to work around my requirements. Not gone down well. 

I must be the only one who enjoyed the time wasting at the corner flag in injury time to run down the clock.
Must have been the most we passed to our own players AND retained possession. At least the Fakes could not score from there.
As said Joe , Foster and Tanser were poor. Muzz floated about , pointing to others to cover opponents while he contributed little. 
Pass marks to Kane , Callachan , Gordon & Kerr. Also Zander for keeping his eyes on the ball to save the penalty with his feet , despite diving to his right.
Just seen the sending off on tv, which was fully deserved , as the guy caught Foster on his shin which could have been a leg breaker.
Summing up 2nd half was brutal , but hey-ho a win is better than a brilliant performance and end up losing.
While St. Midden tried to play the ball to feet and looked the better side in the 2nd half , they are where they are , because their shooting was woeful.
 

# Club   W D L Goals +/- Pts 1  Celtic 8 7 1 0 18:2 16 22 2  Motherwell FC 8 6 1 1 13:6 7 19 3  Rangers 8 5 2 1 22:5 17 17 4  Hibernian FC 8 4 1 3 13:10 3 13 5  Aberdeen FC 8 3 3 2 11:9 2 12 6  Heart of Midl. 8 3 2 3 9:8 1 11 7  Dundee FC 8 2 2 4 9:15 -6 8 8  Livingston FC   8 2 1 5 5:11 -6 7 9  Hamilton Acad. 8 2 1 5 5:18 -13 7 10  Kilmarnock FC 7 1 3 3 5:7 -2 6 11  St. Mirren 7 1 2 4 6:16 -10 5 12  St. Johnstone 8 1 1 6 4:13 -9 4 Form table since the winter break. But let's not over-react eh?
I'm not calling for Tommy's head but I do want him to, frankly, sort it out. 
And every team gets injuries. 
 
 

I'm at the stage of thinking itll be a blessing if Aberdeen sign him. He was absolutely woeful today, and cost us the game away to Hamilton. Add in the fact he seems totally uninspiring as a captain, and you wonder if we'd be much worse off if his wage ****ed off, we used Gordon and Anderson instead, and spread the wealth into other positions.
 

Where to start?
Bell - a disaster we were all warned about. Even at 2-1 down with time in the game, he's holding on to the ball, refusing to throw and dropping the ball to is feet only to pass it out to Joe or Scott who immeditely hoof it over the midfield to nobody, or out the park. Wotherspoon - utter and absolute liability. It is disgraceful that man is on the park and that's all on Tommy. None so blind as those that refuse to see. 
We don't have strikers that cannot score. I'll wait for the replay but it looked to me that Tony had a chance on an open goal from point-blank. Can't be too hard on him to be fair as at least he got in a position and he should never, in any team, be a player that's benched for Chris Kane.
Murray Davidson looks like he's given up. And Tanser, just ****ing hell. He has one idea and he can't even do that. 
I can't be bothered to go on. That was utterly abject. A team that looks like it just couldn't care less. ****ing criminal. 
Let's be clear here. Livingston are a poor football team. They are not a team we should be losing to, under any circumstances, but especially not in that way. 
Time for Tommy to earn his contract extension and get a rocket up this rabble. We'll need 12 points as a minimum for top 6. Aye right. 

That will be why he signed a new contract just weeks ago then. 
Christ.

That's not a positive when you're in a midfield two. Hes a few yards beyond Shinnie as Swanson loses the ball at their second, Shinnie runs half the length of the pitch unchallenged and scores, Davidson hasn't even made it back to our half in that time, Shinnies opened up a 20 yard gap to Davidson, his direct competitor, by the time Davidson has stopped standing in a ****ing huff.
He done the same later on, Goss mocked up a pass, Aberdeen got the ball to counter, and Davidson standing moaning in the centre circle as Goss tries to cope with three midfielders charging at him.
He gets an easy as **** ride lately considering hes done this multiple times since the break, at least two goals against Celtic came from him not bothering to track his man aswell.

You don't understand free speech mate, sorry. 
There is a massive difference between offensive and threatening language and the ability to argue a point. You will find that the dividing line comes usually when speech is discriminatory or incites violence. Oh and the distinction between 'physical' harm and verbal abuse is nonsense. A wee look at history will give you a clue how one leads to the other, and I'm sick of reading about young adults killing themselves at record rates because of verbal bullying. 
Who gets to decide? Yes, the state. That's because the state embodies the legislature that creates the laws and codes that allow a civil and safe society to function. In theory we elect representatives to create such laws and appoint trained legal and enforcement bodies to ensure that the laws are enacted. This is society ensure people can go about their business without having to be harassed, harangued and vilified based on whatever spurious reason I or anyone else feels like. In exactly the same way (and for the avoidance of doubt it is EXACTLY the same) I could not walk up to someone in the street and call them an offensive name based on their skin colour. Or paint 'no blacks' on someone's front door, as recently happened in Manchester. 
TL:DR 'Free speech' is not the right to say whatever the hell you like, to whoever you like, in any context without any sanction, and protecting people is not 'the nanny state'. Daily Mail for that pish. 
If you are genuinely advocating allowing (encouraging?) an atmosphere where children can attend a football match, and if you cannot honestly see the difference between someone being racially abused in front of their kids and 'arguing against bad ideas or concepts' then you've lost the plot and are, frankly, an enabler of racism. 
You also seem confused about China and seem to conflate a repressive state wishing to suppress anti-authority activities with a moron abusing someone at a football game. 

You don't understand free speech mate, sorry. 
There is a massive difference between offensive and threatening language and the ability to argue a point. You will find that the dividing line comes usually when speech is discriminatory or incites violence. Oh and the distinction between 'physical' harm and verbal abuse is nonsense. A wee look at history will give you a clue how one leads to the other, and I'm sick of reading about young adults killing themselves at record rates because of verbal bullying. 
Who gets to decide? Yes, the state. That's because the state embodies the legislature that creates the laws and codes that allow a civil and safe society to function. In theory we elect representatives to create such laws and appoint trained legal and enforcement bodies to ensure that the laws are enacted. This is society ensure people can go about their business without having to be harassed, harangued and vilified based on whatever spurious reason I or anyone else feels like. In exactly the same way (and for the avoidance of doubt it is EXACTLY the same) I could not walk up to someone in the street and call them an offensive name based on their skin colour. Or paint 'no blacks' on someone's front door, as recently happened in Manchester. 
TL:DR 'Free speech' is not the right to say whatever the hell you like, to whoever you like, in any context without any sanction, and protecting people is not 'the nanny state'. Daily Mail for that pish. 
If you are genuinely advocating allowing (encouraging?) an atmosphere where children can attend a football match, and if you cannot honestly see the difference between someone being racially abused in front of their kids and 'arguing against bad ideas or concepts' then you've lost the plot and are, frankly, an enabler of racism. 
You also seem confused about China and seem to conflate a repressive state wishing to suppress anti-authority activities with a moron abusing someone at a football game. 

You don't understand free speech mate, sorry. 
There is a massive difference between offensive and threatening language and the ability to argue a point. You will find that the dividing line comes usually when speech is discriminatory or incites violence. Oh and the distinction between 'physical' harm and verbal abuse is nonsense. A wee look at history will give you a clue how one leads to the other, and I'm sick of reading about young adults killing themselves at record rates because of verbal bullying. 
Who gets to decide? Yes, the state. That's because the state embodies the legislature that creates the laws and codes that allow a civil and safe society to function. In theory we elect representatives to create such laws and appoint trained legal and enforcement bodies to ensure that the laws are enacted. This is society ensure people can go about their business without having to be harassed, harangued and vilified based on whatever spurious reason I or anyone else feels like. In exactly the same way (and for the avoidance of doubt it is EXACTLY the same) I could not walk up to someone in the street and call them an offensive name based on their skin colour. Or paint 'no blacks' on someone's front door, as recently happened in Manchester. 
TL:DR 'Free speech' is not the right to say whatever the hell you like, to whoever you like, in any context without any sanction, and protecting people is not 'the nanny state'. Daily Mail for that pish. 
If you are genuinely advocating allowing (encouraging?) an atmosphere where children can attend a football match, and if you cannot honestly see the difference between someone being racially abused in front of their kids and 'arguing against bad ideas or concepts' then you've lost the plot and are, frankly, an enabler of racism. 
You also seem confused about China and seem to conflate a repressive state wishing to suppress anti-authority activities with a moron abusing someone at a football game. 

You don't understand free speech mate, sorry. 
There is a massive difference between offensive and threatening language and the ability to argue a point. You will find that the dividing line comes usually when speech is discriminatory or incites violence. Oh and the distinction between 'physical' harm and verbal abuse is nonsense. A wee look at history will give you a clue how one leads to the other, and I'm sick of reading about young adults killing themselves at record rates because of verbal bullying. 
Who gets to decide? Yes, the state. That's because the state embodies the legislature that creates the laws and codes that allow a civil and safe society to function. In theory we elect representatives to create such laws and appoint trained legal and enforcement bodies to ensure that the laws are enacted. This is society ensure people can go about their business without having to be harassed, harangued and vilified based on whatever spurious reason I or anyone else feels like. In exactly the same way (and for the avoidance of doubt it is EXACTLY the same) I could not walk up to someone in the street and call them an offensive name based on their skin colour. Or paint 'no blacks' on someone's front door, as recently happened in Manchester. 
TL:DR 'Free speech' is not the right to say whatever the hell you like, to whoever you like, in any context without any sanction, and protecting people is not 'the nanny state'. Daily Mail for that pish. 
If you are genuinely advocating allowing (encouraging?) an atmosphere where children can attend a football match, and if you cannot honestly see the difference between someone being racially abused in front of their kids and 'arguing against bad ideas or concepts' then you've lost the plot and are, frankly, an enabler of racism. 
You also seem confused about China and seem to conflate a repressive state wishing to suppress anti-authority activities with a moron abusing someone at a football game. 

You don't understand free speech mate, sorry. 
There is a massive difference between offensive and threatening language and the ability to argue a point. You will find that the dividing line comes usually when speech is discriminatory or incites violence. Oh and the distinction between 'physical' harm and verbal abuse is nonsense. A wee look at history will give you a clue how one leads to the other, and I'm sick of reading about young adults killing themselves at record rates because of verbal bullying. 
Who gets to decide? Yes, the state. That's because the state embodies the legislature that creates the laws and codes that allow a civil and safe society to function. In theory we elect representatives to create such laws and appoint trained legal and enforcement bodies to ensure that the laws are enacted. This is society ensure people can go about their business without having to be harassed, harangued and vilified based on whatever spurious reason I or anyone else feels like. In exactly the same way (and for the avoidance of doubt it is EXACTLY the same) I could not walk up to someone in the street and call them an offensive name based on their skin colour. Or paint 'no blacks' on someone's front door, as recently happened in Manchester. 
TL:DR 'Free speech' is not the right to say whatever the hell you like, to whoever you like, in any context without any sanction, and protecting people is not 'the nanny state'. Daily Mail for that pish. 
If you are genuinely advocating allowing (encouraging?) an atmosphere where children can attend a football match, and if you cannot honestly see the difference between someone being racially abused in front of their kids and 'arguing against bad ideas or concepts' then you've lost the plot and are, frankly, an enabler of racism. 
You also seem confused about China and seem to conflate a repressive state wishing to suppress anti-authority activities with a moron abusing someone at a football game. 

You don't understand free speech mate, sorry. 
There is a massive difference between offensive and threatening language and the ability to argue a point. You will find that the dividing line comes usually when speech is discriminatory or incites violence. Oh and the distinction between 'physical' harm and verbal abuse is nonsense. A wee look at history will give you a clue how one leads to the other, and I'm sick of reading about young adults killing themselves at record rates because of verbal bullying. 
Who gets to decide? Yes, the state. That's because the state embodies the legislature that creates the laws and codes that allow a civil and safe society to function. In theory we elect representatives to create such laws and appoint trained legal and enforcement bodies to ensure that the laws are enacted. This is society ensure people can go about their business without having to be harassed, harangued and vilified based on whatever spurious reason I or anyone else feels like. In exactly the same way (and for the avoidance of doubt it is EXACTLY the same) I could not walk up to someone in the street and call them an offensive name based on their skin colour. Or paint 'no blacks' on someone's front door, as recently happened in Manchester. 
TL:DR 'Free speech' is not the right to say whatever the hell you like, to whoever you like, in any context without any sanction, and protecting people is not 'the nanny state'. Daily Mail for that pish. 
If you are genuinely advocating allowing (encouraging?) an atmosphere where children can attend a football match, and if you cannot honestly see the difference between someone being racially abused in front of their kids and 'arguing against bad ideas or concepts' then you've lost the plot and are, frankly, an enabler of racism. 
You also seem confused about China and seem to conflate a repressive state wishing to suppress anti-authority activities with a moron abusing someone at a football game. 

You don't understand free speech mate, sorry. 
There is a massive difference between offensive and threatening language and the ability to argue a point. You will find that the dividing line comes usually when speech is discriminatory or incites violence. Oh and the distinction between 'physical' harm and verbal abuse is nonsense. A wee look at history will give you a clue how one leads to the other, and I'm sick of reading about young adults killing themselves at record rates because of verbal bullying. 
Who gets to decide? Yes, the state. That's because the state embodies the legislature that creates the laws and codes that allow a civil and safe society to function. In theory we elect representatives to create such laws and appoint trained legal and enforcement bodies to ensure that the laws are enacted. This is society ensure people can go about their business without having to be harassed, harangued and vilified based on whatever spurious reason I or anyone else feels like. In exactly the same way (and for the avoidance of doubt it is EXACTLY the same) I could not walk up to someone in the street and call them an offensive name based on their skin colour. Or paint 'no blacks' on someone's front door, as recently happened in Manchester. 
TL:DR 'Free speech' is not the right to say whatever the hell you like, to whoever you like, in any context without any sanction, and protecting people is not 'the nanny state'. Daily Mail for that pish. 
If you are genuinely advocating allowing (encouraging?) an atmosphere where children can attend a football match, and if you cannot honestly see the difference between someone being racially abused in front of their kids and 'arguing against bad ideas or concepts' then you've lost the plot and are, frankly, an enabler of racism. 
You also seem confused about China and seem to conflate a repressive state wishing to suppress anti-authority activities with a moron abusing someone at a football game. 

You don't understand free speech mate, sorry. 
There is a massive difference between offensive and threatening language and the ability to argue a point. You will find that the dividing line comes usually when speech is discriminatory or incites violence. Oh and the distinction between 'physical' harm and verbal abuse is nonsense. A wee look at history will give you a clue how one leads to the other, and I'm sick of reading about young adults killing themselves at record rates because of verbal bullying. 
Who gets to decide? Yes, the state. That's because the state embodies the legislature that creates the laws and codes that allow a civil and safe society to function. In theory we elect representatives to create such laws and appoint trained legal and enforcement bodies to ensure that the laws are enacted. This is society ensure people can go about their business without having to be harassed, harangued and vilified based on whatever spurious reason I or anyone else feels like. In exactly the same way (and for the avoidance of doubt it is EXACTLY the same) I could not walk up to someone in the street and call them an offensive name based on their skin colour. Or paint 'no blacks' on someone's front door, as recently happened in Manchester. 
TL:DR 'Free speech' is not the right to say whatever the hell you like, to whoever you like, in any context without any sanction, and protecting people is not 'the nanny state'. Daily Mail for that pish. 
If you are genuinely advocating allowing (encouraging?) an atmosphere where children can attend a football match, and if you cannot honestly see the difference between someone being racially abused in front of their kids and 'arguing against bad ideas or concepts' then you've lost the plot and are, frankly, an enabler of racism. 
You also seem confused about China and seem to conflate a repressive state wishing to suppress anti-authority activities with a moron abusing someone at a football game. 

You don't understand free speech mate, sorry. 
There is a massive difference between offensive and threatening language and the ability to argue a point. You will find that the dividing line comes usually when speech is discriminatory or incites violence. Oh and the distinction between 'physical' harm and verbal abuse is nonsense. A wee look at history will give you a clue how one leads to the other, and I'm sick of reading about young adults killing themselves at record rates because of verbal bullying. 
Who gets to decide? Yes, the state. That's because the state embodies the legislature that creates the laws and codes that allow a civil and safe society to function. In theory we elect representatives to create such laws and appoint trained legal and enforcement bodies to ensure that the laws are enacted. This is society ensure people can go about their business without having to be harassed, harangued and vilified based on whatever spurious reason I or anyone else feels like. In exactly the same way (and for the avoidance of doubt it is EXACTLY the same) I could not walk up to someone in the street and call them an offensive name based on their skin colour. Or paint 'no blacks' on someone's front door, as recently happened in Manchester. 
TL:DR 'Free speech' is not the right to say whatever the hell you like, to whoever you like, in any context without any sanction, and protecting people is not 'the nanny state'. Daily Mail for that pish. 
If you are genuinely advocating allowing (encouraging?) an atmosphere where children can attend a football match, and if you cannot honestly see the difference between someone being racially abused in front of their kids and 'arguing against bad ideas or concepts' then you've lost the plot and are, frankly, an enabler of racism. 
You also seem confused about China and seem to conflate a repressive state wishing to suppress anti-authority activities with a moron abusing someone at a football game.