Muggy Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 There was plenty of them saying they wouldn't miss Robertson either! "them" - Nice to see the Perthshire superiority complex back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The ghost of Jim Morton Posted March 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 "them" - Nice to see the Perthshire superiority complex back. It's better than " coagie minks"...Them is progress...180:wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silver_blue Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Last year we finished 3rd. This year hopefully 1st therefore we have improved. You can only play to what opposition is in front of you. I see why some may think last years ( at times ) or two seasons ago teams were better to watch but ultimately history will show this one as being the best. That arguement is like the Celtic fans who think the DiCanio, Van Hoodonk team was being better than than Wim Jansen's title winners when they won nothing but a cup final against Airdrie. Appreciate my OF analogy falls flat on it's face as this would indicate last years *** team was better than the Laudrup, Van Bronkhurst, Gazza team we beat ten years ago which is tosh. So in answer to the original question AYE we HUV ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broon Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Have we improved in footballing terms? Probably not. We're certainly more negative and the football is not as good to watch. However, if you asked have we become more streetwise? Then yes, we have. And that's what's going to get us out of this league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnstoun Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 ok, like every other team that wins the league buys it then? Any team that wins the league spending money they don't have is buying it. In the last few seasons St Mirren and Accies posted profits the year they went up. Gretna spent more on wages than their turnover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint sid Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 "them" - Nice to see the Perthshire superiority complex back. you have a complex about perth being superior? we are superior:wink: so dont worry its not a complex:cool: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dee4life Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 There was plenty of them saying they wouldn't miss Robertson either! I did not know anyone who said we would not miss robertson,but hey the idiots on p and b know better eh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Paul Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 You set them up, big man!!! The title of the thread is, "Have Saints improved on last year.." yet you say, "..Under McInnes we have most definitely improved....". McInnes was in charge for most of last year! This team, with Del's tictacs, would not beat Coyle's team of 2006/7 in a single game. Maybe over the season they might. This team would annihilate last years "Del team" because he played a hopless 4-3-3 most of the year. Also, we were lacking midfield quality, exacerbated by Hards injury and Del's failure to acknowldge the quality of Mooner. This year we have Midgie/Swanks/Sammy and Peanut is no longer breathless and useless out wide. Del is improving, but if the title should have read, "Is Del better than Coyle?", the answer is emphatically, no! Surely, if this team could beat Coyle's team over a season, then that is the point. The league is won over a season, not a single game ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dunblanemike Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 You set them up, big man!!! The title of the thread is, "Have Saints improved on last year.." yet you say, "..Under McInnes we have most definitely improved....". McInnes was in charge for most of last year! This team, with Del's tictacs, would not beat Coyle's team of 2006/7 in a single game. Maybe over the season they might. This team would annihilate last years "Del team" because he played a hopless 4-3-3 most of the year. Also, we were lacking midfield quality, exacerbated by Hards injury and Del's failure to acknowldge the quality of Mooner. This year we have Midgie/Swanks/Sammy and Peanut is no longer breathless and useless out wide. Del is improving, but if the title should have read, "Is Del better than Coyle?", the answer is emphatically, no! Phew, for a minute there I thought you were disagreeing that we have improved over last years team. The question was if this year's team was better than last, regardless of who was in charge for some of that year, so why did you include the year before? One question - are there two or more people signing on here with your name 101? The logic and tone of your messages changes so much that I do wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soulfulsaint Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 You set them up, big man!!! This team, with Del's tictacs, would not beat Coyle's team of 2006/7 in a single game. Maybe over the season they might. Should McInnes be eating so many mint-sweeties it may reflect badly on saints Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101 Saint Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Phew, for a minute there I thought you were disagreeing that we have improved over last years team. The question was if this year's team was better than last, regardless of who was in charge for some of that year, so why did you include the year before? One question - are there two or more people signing on here with your name 101? The logic and tone of your messages changes so much that I do wonder. I know what the question was, but the author introduced the phrase, "Under McInnes we have most definately improved." There's only one 101 Saint! The funny thing is, a lot of my "fishing," "boring" and "stupid" posts turn out to be correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dee4life Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 For what its worth I think the hamilton team of last season would,ve won this league pretty easy if they did not go up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soulfulsaint Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 For what its worth I think the hamilton team of last season would,ve won this league pretty easy if they did not go up. Probably which means Dundee wouldn't have been in the top three. Huge club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dee4life Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Probably which means Dundee wouldn't have been in the top three. Huge club. I dont think we are as good as last season and maybe would,ve sneaked in at 3rd,what this has to do with our size as a club is beyond me.Do you believe Leeds are not a big club because of there league placing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 For what its worth I think the hamilton team of last season would,ve won this league pretty easy if they did not go up. I agree with your anguish of what could have been. Saints have only been outside a top three finish once since leaving the SPL. In any other national football heirarchy we'd have been promoted or been in some sort of play-off system. That deficit can't be good for football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dee4life Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 I agree with your anguish of what could have been. Saints have only been outside a top three finish once since leaving the SPL. In any other national football heirarchy we'd have been promoted or been in some sort of play-off system. That deficit can't be good for football. Nae anguish from me,being a dee fan for as long as I have you get used to it.I agree the system in scotland is crap and needs to be be changed.The spl is boring and to many dull games imo.I would prefer a bigger league playing each other maybe twice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Nae anguish from me,being a dee fan for as long as I have you get used to it.I agree the system in scotland is crap and needs to be be changed.The spl is boring and to many dull games imo.I would prefer a bigger league playing each other maybe twice. So would I Dee4Life. The SPL is like a social club that has the same people in it every year except for one position which is an election process from the 1st division, and that new member is examined closely by other members because that member is new and different. That kind of social club goes stale. England has got it right. I'm amazed that clubs in the SPL have not noticed that if they get relegated they'll struggle to get back to the insular social club they've created. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soulfulsaint Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 I dont think we are as good as last season and maybe would,ve sneaked in at 3rd,what this has to do with our size as a club is beyond me.Do you believe Leeds are not a big club because of there league placing? Yes they are a big club but they don't feel insecure about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dee4life Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Yes they are a big club but they don't feel insecure about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintj Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Any team that wins the league spending money they don't have is buying it. In the last few seasons St Mirren and Accies posted profits the year they went up. Gretna spent more on wages than their turnover. gretna had the money via brooks mileson, so they didnt buy it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintj Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 No. I'm confident that Dundee spent more than Hamilton last year. Gretna took things to a whole new level. Doesn't always work, as East Fife are proving. my point is it doesnt matter who spends what, everyone has to spend some amount of money to win the league Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
541ntees Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Nae anguish from me,being a dee fan for as long as I have you get used to it.I agree the system in scotland is crap and needs to be be changed.The spl is boring and to many dull games imo.I would prefer a bigger league playing each other maybe twice. I understand that a league of 20 teams would take the pressure off a lot of teams meaning they could try play more attacking/attractive football and bring in more youngsters. My main problem is most teams would be playing for nothing making their games boring even if is a 5-4 game. You need to be playing for something to make it exciting. Chances are you'd get the O.F going for the league roughly 4 teams for europe, 4 for relegation meaning 10 teams playing for nothing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dee4life Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 I understand that a league of 20 teams would take the pressure off a lot of teams meaning they could try play more attacking/attractive football and bring in more youngsters. My main problem is most teams would be playing for nothing making their games boring even if is a 5-4 game. You need to be playing for something to make it exciting. Chances are you'd get the O.F going for the league roughly 4 teams for europe, 4 for relegation meaning 10 teams playing for nothing Not necessarily,look at this seasons premiership,granted we do not have as much european places but say a league of 18 would be better imo, outwith the o/f none of the other spl teams are world beaters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnstoun Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 gretna had the money via brooks mileson, so they didnt buy it But he didn't have the money. If he had they would still exist. What he had was a massive line of credit in a holding company and it went tits up because he couldn't pay the bill. Gretna went bust owing nearly 6 million quid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintj Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 But he didn't have the money. If he had they would still exist. What he had was a massive line of credit in a holding company and it went tits up because he couldn't pay the bill. Gretna went bust owing nearly 6 million quid. i am led to believe he didnt pay because he was too ill, perhaps i am wrong then i still do not and will not believe the league can be 'bought' as such when it is players that is being bought which is meant to happen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.