That_Dave

I really don't get the hatred for a manager who won two trophies. Whilst we're struggling with him as manager is ok to criticise, but surely enough time has passed now since he left to focus on his three seasons in charge rather than fixate on the last two. His comment about 9th is clearly that finishing 9th is not a sackable offence. That's a fair comment and I wouldn't expect to see McLean sacked if we finish 9th this season. Claiming a guy who won two trophies and finished 6th had no ambition to do better than 9th is laughable. He might have been a one-season wonder, but when your one season was that good that should be the legacy he's remembered for.

It feels to me like a bit of a free hit this game. Most teams will lose this fixture and there's no disgrace in losing it. Given we've got a lot of new players come in recently, it's an opportunity for them to find their feet and get to know each other in a game were defeat isn't that much of a disappointment. Even a proper hammering will highlight where the cracks are and be useful for next week's game, which is much, much more important for us. But, we will be a bit of an unknown quantity to Celtic. They'll have no idea how we'll line up. They are off the back of a defeat to Killie, and hopefully confidence will have taken a knock. An early goal for us could see their confidence rocked. So I'm not writing it off as a guaranteed defeat, even if any points are a bonus. Either way, I can imagine the team will turn up for training on Monday seeing some positives which have come out of the results. We might come away pointless, but there will certainly be things we can use going forwards. I'd much rather have this fixture this weekend than be playing the Dundee (h) game tomorrow.

What we need is players who believe they can improve our team. Players who think we're in a relegation battle aren't the type of players we want anyway. Players who are looking at our performances and think they can plug the gaps we need fixing will be happy to come as they won't see us as relegation fodder if they come. The unintended benefit of the League Cup campaign is we know have two weeks to focus on training, and three weeks until the next game we're looking to win. (We will play defensive at Celtic). The game in three weeks, at home to Dundee, should be the focus. It's then another three weeks until our next winnable game (Hibs, after an international break and Rangers). That's plenty of time for new players to settle in and make the difference. It's clear where the gaps are in the team and what qualities we need to bring in. If we fail to make new signings we're in trouble. The players who are right for what we need will know they are guaranteed to start, which will make us more appealing. We've also got time for the new signings we've made to get to know each other. I think it's far too early to predict how the season will go. We will be in the bottom two after 5 games given the upcoming fixtures, so shouldn't judge our position too early.

Losing a meaningless match, before the start of the season, which we had nothing riding on is always going to get a reasoned response. It's an entire month until the transfer window closes, and we haven't had most of our planned signings yet. So obviously a great time to judge the squad. Last season Hibs went out in the first round. I'm assuming they must have had a dreadful reason if the group stage is a good indicator of how a season might end up.

To be fair, the Kerr and McCann sagas messed up that transfer window. If they both stayed what we needed was very different to if they both went. It being resolved so late was a problem, but the bigger issue is the whole summer we didn't really know what the core of the squad would be come transfer deadline day. Had we know they were going, and for what price, earlier I think our incoming transfers would be very different. I think this links to why so many players came in during January that season. We couldn't use the budget in the summer, and tried to spend it and build a new culture in the middle of the season. That run in November/December is what really did for us, as it dragged us into a relegation battle so we couldn't keep the investment until the summer. I'm not sensing much danger of our best players being bought late on this year, so hopefully we can get the transfers sorted much earlier. I think the late sales of Kerr and McCann are why the squad is still slightly unbalanced, but hopefully we can address that this summer and move on from that issue.

It's possible that Kane only wants six months and the club wants longer. He might want an opportunity to put himself in the window for a better paid deal elsewhere and doesn't want to commit to the season. In that situation, it would make sense for the club to not publicise that he's available on a free in January.

It will be 50% of the transfer fee if we sell him - it will be the North American way of saying something common in British football. I'm never convinced that add-ons are ever a good idea. It will likely be that we pay such much when they reach so many appearances. This discourages managers from giving players a run as it lowers their transfer kitty. It can also set aims for forwards based on appearances, not goals. There are lots of young players who have had this in their contracts, and gone backwards as a result. Dean Henderson is an example of this - Carlisle get £10k every time he plays for Man United, so he's only made 13 appearances.

What if I told you that Bair had the 2nd most assists last season. And that Crawford was joint 3rd. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/teams/st-johnstone/top-scorers/assists I wouldn't say Bair was a bad signing just because it's not worked out for him. Young players are always a risk and there is a potential the club clearly see there. I suspect a side in England League Two, or National League, will see him as a rough diamond who needs a run of first team football. There will be clubs looking for players who have potential but not the chance to have shown it fully and Bair might appeal to them. Who knows what a change of scene might do for him. Crawford has always been a curious one for me. He seems to work well as a super-sub, coming on and making things happen, but then rarely delivers when playing the whole game. I'm not sure why that is, but 2 goals and 2 assists in the amount of game time he's had isn't a bad return. Highest goals per game (excluding Kane's 2 cameos) and the player who hits the target most often (of players with 5 or more shots). For a much maligned player his stats for the season are actually quite good given his limited playing time. I do wonder if a change in formation might suit his game and we might see a more consistent player next season.

I'm disappointed to see him go as he was always able to add excitement to the game. But, on the other hand I'm glad that we've got grown-ups making strong decisions, rather than keeping players for sentimental reasons. Keeping him as an icon and forcing a role for him, rather than having a gap he fits, would be the worst outcome. Hopefully he'll get a good contract somewhere.

A good assistant manager will usually be very different in style to the manager. You don't want a Yes Man who thinks the same way as you. You want someone who sees the game very different, suggests very different ideas and is able to give advice or thoughts you'd never come up with. Generally, very attacking managers need someone more defensive to reign them in, whilst very defensive managers needs someone more attacking to develop more going forward. A good assistant will know lots of their ideas will be ignored, but feel the ones which are included are the things which give teams that little extra bit of spark which is needed. The Graham Taylor and Phil Neal documentary back in the 90s showed just how useless having a Yes Man for your assistant is. They thought the same, and produced a truly dreadful side as a result.

The question is whether the Championship has been so close due to being a high quality division, or due to being a low quality division. Inverness has beaten a couple of SPL teams in the cup, which might indicate it's quality. But have Dundee really turned that big a corner from the dreadful side they were last year to win a quality league?

In terms of the bigger picture, he has to be offered the job if he seriously wants it. You can't put a guy in charge with a target of having 6 games to keep us up, see him achieve it with 2 games to go, and then not give him the job. It's a question of whether you want a manager who feels they've got time to achieve what they want to, or whether they're pushing for short-term results to keep their jobs. If McLean wants it and doesn't get it, we're going to end up a manager who takes the pragmatic view of trying to prolong their time in the job, rather than installing a long-term blueprint for how they want us to play. The thought of turning him down and bringing in a manager who will cycle the squad over the next 12 months and complete their job of evolving the team to their style in a year's time is fanciable. Replacing McLean in October if we don't start well won't prevent that from happening if he's given a chance. The ownership situation, which I wouldn't assume will be resolved this summer (based on absolutely nothing) is another factor. Everyone knows new owners want a new manager so the club is run to their vision, not the previous vision. McLean has shown he's the right man to stay in place until a new owner, with a new agenda, gets here. Again, is a new manager realistically going to build a long-term vision if they feel a takeover might happen and cost them their job?

It seems a natural time for Coyle to leave, given how badly they blow the title this season. As a free agent he's attractive to clubs, but under contract he isn't. So I don't think there was ever potential compensation for QP. I wouldn't be surprised to see him at Salford next season if they don't go up. Davidson is always going to be attractive to every club outside the very top clubs. Realistically, bringing in a manager who can win trophies and handle the pressure of a relegation battle with a club of a relatively similar size will always be appealing. Realistically, if we were offered a new manager who could guarantee a top 6 finish, two cup wins and a relegation play-off win over the next two seasons we'd take that, and the question of the quality of the football would be largely secondary. (Obviously you can't guarantee the journey, but a guy who has done it recently will always be in demand.)

Owning a football club is never about making money from the club. It's about demonstrating that you've got the spare cash to be able to own a football club. It's a badge of honour for businesspeople and acts as an endorsement which enables to make more money from their main business. I don't agree with the belief that intelligent people with the money wouldn't invest - it's people with the vision of what they are investing in that matters. The profitability of the actual club is a secondary concern. This is just as true of American investors as local ones. Welcome to Wrexham will be making British football much more appealing to rich Americans to show off their wealth and investment might come in. Demonstrating the improvements made to the club, and ability to finance developments, is important for the rationale that people get involved. The Gillingham owner above is talking about the non-matchday stuff not because of the value it adds to the club, but the value it adds to the perception of what he owns. Academies like the Boreham Wood one brings in prestige, but won't be bringing in much money at all. It's effectively just a franchise of the education provider, who get all the profits. Boreham Wood have certainly not seen a massive investment in their playing side or infrastructure. They continue to be the level they've been for years, with links to Arsenal Women, and gaining a bit of reputation and publicity. Good things for the owner, but not reflecting on bigger budgets for the manager. Finding players through the system is their outcome, not profit. The Boreham Wood approach works in England as it's about getting players released from academies knocked into shape to have professional or semi-professional football. There are enough teams who pay decent wages in England that makes it an option - going through the academy to get into National League North (6th tier, or teams just in the top 166 in England). How many clubs in Scotland would pay a worthwhile wage?

I can see how this appeals to League Two sides. If they are relegated, they get a season playing the Colts sides, bringing in income and having a 1 in 6 chance of coming back up. Currently, if they go down they have to win the league, then a play-off just to have a chance to play the bottom club. It shouldn't make the top non-league side stronger, so doesn't increase the chance of relegation, but does the chances of coming back in. That will appeal to League One/Two sides who might see themselves potentially finishing bottom at some point. I suspect many SPL/Championship clubs will see this as a solution for the Colts sides which doesn't impact them. It appeases the bigger clubs and prevents a larger restructure being suggested. So there's little incentive for clubs like Saints to get involved in this. I'm not saying it's a good option. The best option would be for the top Scottish clubs to join the top sides in the North of England to have a Northern Colts league, allowing Rangers and Celtic to test themselves against the Manchester and Liverpool clubs. I can see the arrangement being miserable for fans of real teams watching them play youth teams half the season. But I can understand why from a business perspective clubs are in favour of it.

I think playing Dundee United in the first game is the best result. They have won three on the bounce. Hopefully the weekend off will break that momentum, but also give a little chance for the pressure to build on them. I think the two week break will benefit us. It was sensible for MacLean not to make too many changes when he had 5 days to prepare the team. But he now has a nice break to train the players into his ways and get the side moving. Dundee United, the form team of our rivals, will be a little unprepared for what we are going to throw at them. I always think with these breaks that teams on a winning run can struggle to identify their weaknesses to work on, whereas teams on a winless run know where to concentrate. It might only be one free weekend, but with the new fixture list it might break the strides of teams a little.

They're not really delayed. Last year they came out on the Tuesday. With there being 3 different potential ways the top/bottom 6 could have been split, it's not the case of just having two options to look at. I'd imagine with two possibilities they prepare both and ask clubs in advance to comment, whereas with 3 or more options they ask clubs on the Monday to comment before release on the Tuesday (or delay if there are important issues raised).

I think we do a good job of building the fan base. Our average attendance is about 1 in 10 people in Perth, or 1 in 30 people in Perth and Kinross. The issue we have in comparison to the more Central Belt sides is they have lots of people within a reasonable travel distance. Aside from Dundee, which we'll never get many fans from, our nearest large population is Stirling, which is closer to Edinburgh/Glasgow than Perth. The outlaying areas don't have massive populations to tap up. There's always things to do better, but we do a good job of getting the local population to matches. What we need are populations which don't have a local side, and where people don't already have a Scottish side they support. English and International university students at St Andrews and Stirling should be the focus. Doing something with those universities to provide coaching for their teams, and providing cheap transport for match days, presents an opportunity to get a load of people probably spending 4 years in Scotland to support Saints, and spread the word about the club far and wide after they leave. On the commercial side, I think the car park/East Stand lends itself well to an outdoor cinema. A drive-in cinema would work well in the slanted car park, with the opportunity to use the facilities in the stands to sell drinks etc. Taking that a step further, and showing Scotland games on a large screen in front of the East Stand might be a way to get money on international weeks, as well as bringing the fans (and wider community) together. There aren't good options for kids to watch live games shown in pubs, so putting something on where they can watch them from their normal seats would be beneficial. It might even get some local kids to come to the ground, and want to see a match in-person.

Given our home form this season, I hope the Killie game is away.

Biggest game of the season for sure. A win and results going our way means we can give McLean time and not rush a decision. Defeat and results going against us could mean appointing someone for a relegation dog-fight. The manager we'd need then is very much a pragmatic Davidson-type, which isn't necessarily what we need for next season. If they come in and keep us up, it's hard to move beyond them. Hibs are under-pressure themselves in this game. They are two points off 4th, but if they fail to win and Livingstone do their European push is over. We could see them taking massive risks if level late on, so it will be interesting to see how open McLean would want to be if that actually happens - take the point, or commit to trying to catch them on the counter?

We've lost the last three, but two were on plastic pitches. We don't have many of those games per season. Our last four games on grass has seen two wins, a draw and a last-minute defeat to Celtic (who we outplayed for the last 15 minutes). I wouldn't jump to quick reactions based on games on plastic pitches, which teams can be uncomfortable on. The next two games will give a much better idea of how the season is panning out.

If VAR is being used properly, then it would award the goal in that case. VAR isn't there to be a second referee, as the article suggests. They tried that in the EPL the last couple of seasons and it was a nightmare. VAR is there for seeing in the officials have made a clear and obvious error. The ex-ref says himself in the article that it's questionable but should be given. The fact it's questionable means if the ref gave a foul VAR would say foul, but if the ref said goal VAR would say goal. That's how it works in most countries and the Champions League, and why it works well. When EPL tried overturning very decision, however questionable, it was a nightmare. At the weekend, in the Arsenal Liverpool game on Sunday there was a handball with the defender having his arm slightly up. It probably was a penalty, but there was enough doubt to say that no penalty was an acceptable decision. So it wasn't given. In the Newcastle Brentford game, the same thing happened but the referee gave the penalty. VAR looked at it and there was enough doubt to say that a penalty was an acceptable decision. So it was given. In both cases, VAR went with the on-field decision as it wasn't clearly wrong but an acceptable decision either way.. I'd say that shirt pull is in the same position. It's down to whether the defender would have headed the ball without the pull. That's questionable enough for VAR to rule that the referee's decision was fair. If the ref had given the pull though, VAR wouldn't have overruled that either.

You've taken the hard to beat comment totally out of context, given it referred to away games. So 2 home defeats aren't important in that. Away from home Rangers is the only game we haven't looked like getting a point. And our away form is a point a game. Do that all season and you only need 24 points from 17 home games to make the top half. I'd hardly say a 90th minute goal, and a free kick from the wrong place, means we 'got beat comfortably' in the home games either. Aberdeen in particular was a game where either side winning 1-0 would be seen as a professional performance. No team will come to St Johnstone and totally sit back, but they won't take the game forward as much as they would at home. Hence why we're seeing low-scoring games at home, and higher scoring games away at the moment. We're doing better in the high scoring games, despite being a team who can't score.

I think the system works well away from home. The problem is with home games. If you look at the league games this season, we've had 3 away games, all to teams who finished in the top 5 last season. 3 points from those games isn't a bad return. We got a win at Motherwell. We did better than last season at Ibrox and were, just about, in the game for most of it. And at Hearts we put up a good fight and it was individual errors rather than the system which let us down. Our away form hasn't been bad this season. It does make us hard to beat, whilst giving us options going forwards. Four games in two non-OF games isn't bad for a side not exactly known for scoring. The problem is at home. Teams come wanting to sneak a 1-0 rather than wanting an expansive game and that doesn't really play to our strengths. We'll do ok at home to Old Firm (in games which produce few points), but in the games where we need to take it to the opposition we probably won't do as well. The Aberdeen performance was a lot better than Hibs, so hopefully we are growing into it. But with a couple of winnable home games coming up we'll need results to relieve pressure on Davidson. I suspect the away games coming up will do that anyway. I suspect the longer-term plan is a different system at home and away. After the World Cup we'll have Kane and Wotherspoon back. I think then we'll have a back four, and either a second striker (Bair or May with Kane), or a midfield five with someone playing very high. If that is the tactic for the season, perhaps trying the away tactic until the break is the better option than bringing in players we might not need. If the system is used all season away from home I won't be upset. If it's planned to be used in all home games it really needs to start working better than it has so far - but I think the return of Wotherspoon particularly will see an alternative in place.

I wonder if there is a touch of canniness about this. Other teams send three or four players to moan at the referee about every decision and the referee then tends to give them the benefit of any doubt every time. We generally have one player on their own moaning about decisions, which referees tend to see as one player being a pain. We're constantly seeing other teams putting collective pressure on officials - we need to start doing this rather than failing to back each other up.