blueheaven

Now that we have this new badge I hope we use it across all kits and don't have another one with that "S.J.F.C." lettering. I've never understood why we'd want to use that when we have an actual, proper badge. It's sometimes claimed to be "retro" but it's not based on anything Saints ever wore in the past and seems to mainly have been lifted from the knock-off shirt TOFFS released in the 90s.

I just went onto the ticketing page and it said "Sales are now closed". So are they not even allowing people to make a late decision? Or is this some temporary glitch?

I assume it's done to give us two price options? I.e. the cheaper section in the corner, and the more expensive option closer to the middle. And it's harder for them to charge different prices if everyone's sitting together in the same area. But yeah, it makes it even harder for Saints fans to make any collective noise which is a bit rubbish.

Why is four leagues ridiculous, and what would you replace it with? From what I can remember at the time, one of the big reasons we moved from three leagues to four leagues was that it would give everyone more to play for as there would be more teams involved in promotion and relegation battles, and more movement up and down the leagues which means more freshness for everyone.

What size would you make the league in order to have teams only play each other twice a season? If it's a 16-team league, that means only 30 league games for each club, so only 15 home games, which means a reduction in revenue (in addition to the hit clubs would already be taking by accepting fewer home games against the OF). I don't really see how putting Falkirk and Dunfermline in would mean increased crowds, when those games would effectively be replacing games against Rangers and Celtic. I really don't get the idea of actively asking for a league that has more "dead" games. Why is that preferable to exciting, important games where there's something to play for? I'd be amazed if this increase in meaningless games didn't also bring with it a downturn in attendances. What we currently have, with some genuine end-of-season excitement to finish the season, is surely miles better for spectators? Maybe I'm on my own here but I'd much rather see a crucial game with a big crowd and a lot to play for, than an end-of-season kick-about where teams experiment with tactics and youngsters in what is basically a pre-season friendly.

Yeah there's some info about that here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/34882922 Airdrie were forced to change their badge because of it at the time.

I think you're possibly looking at it the wrong way round? The lamb's head is facing to the right. The bit that I'm guessing you're possibly seeing as a bird's beak is its ear? I really like the new badge, FWIW. I'm pleased to see the club doing this as I've felt it's been needed for a while. For quite some time now there have been several different versions of the badge being used and it's all needed to be brought into line and made consistent. This feels like a welcome refresh and modernization to me, and I like that they've done it without making any major changes. Nice job from the people at RYSE. Edited to add: Love the addition of the halo to the lamb too. Really nice little touch.

The thing is though, a bigger league could actually help the OF more than a smaller league. You could easily end up with a scenario where the OF keep getting stronger because their home crowds will stay large regardless of league size. Meanwhile, the rest of us will have reduced number of big crowds and increased number of small crowds. More clubs at the bottom end of the league could also increase the number of cricket-score whippings dealt out by the OF. You're potentially advocating a change that makes the gap between the OF and everyone else bigger, not smaller. I don't dispute that there are clubs lower down the leagues who could get bigger crowds than us. But like I said, there are reasons why some of these clubs have been stuck in the lower leagues for a long time.

How do you see a 14-team league working?

But what would the format be to facilitate this? Because if you're reducing the number of home games that teams get against the Old Firm, and you're also reducing the number of Old Firm derbies, then all of the clubs are going to get lower average home crowds and they're also going to get less TV money. So revenue across the board is going to go down, not up. And you're very probably also running the risk of increasing the gap between the OF and everyone else. And you're possibly also looking at ticket increases as clubs try to recoup what they've lost from other avenues. I absolutely hate that our league always has to revolve around the Old Firm issue but we can't just pretend that issue doesn't exist and isn't of importance to clubs.

I think there are fairly well documented reasons why the players you name have slipped out of the picture, whether it's attitude problems, personal issues, injuries or just plain poor form. Perhaps it could be argued that Simo should have made it his job to resolve some of those issues and get the best out of people, but equally I think he probably hasn't had the luxury of time so has made the decision to give his attention to the players he thinks he can get the most out of. There's a lot of dead wood in the squad and it's still looking pretty imbalanced so we definitely need to have a good summer window and we need the majority of the next batch of signings to be successful ones.

Yes I would have said the same about us when we were in that league, because for a lot of the time when we were down there we were awful. We didn't get promoted for ages because we didn't deserve to get promoted. If you're not very good, you tend to not be in the top division. That's how leagues work. I don't get what your problem is with acknowledging that? I know plenty about where we've come from thanks, and I know that what we've achieved has been achieved on merit. I'm not saying Ayr and Morton should be prevented from achieving those things too. What I am saying is that they haven't achieved very much at all for decade after decade because they're not very good.

What's arrogant about it? If you introduce poorer teams into a league, the chances are you're going to make the league poorer.

It's probably the one down-side of the format, but it's still by far the best format I've seen proposed. Bringing Ayr/Partick/Morton into the league is not going to improve the quality of the league. Those clubs spend their time trapped in the lower leagues for good reason.

Honestly not sure what you're basing this judgement on? We've only had one window since his remit changed to include recruitment and I'd say we recruited pretty well in that window, given that we know several first-choice targets pulled out of signing for us because we dropped to the bottom of the league. We recruited eight players in that window and other than Watt who hasn't played much (and was probably a bit of a late punt to bolster numbers anyway) and Svedberg who I think we all agree needs more time, I'd say they're all improvements on what we had previously.