Goggles & Flippers

From what I could gather last night and I'm going to be a little critical here, the current benefit based system results in the society giving the club around £40k a year to cover the shortfall the club makes in giving money off season tickets primarily. That pretty much takes into account most/all of the renewal subscriptions.I have been aware for quite some time the annual payment by society members goes to the club for supplying the benefits, hence I never paid it. the main point I take like you is that the Society benefits in no way what so ever from these payments made by fans, the additional point last night was that , it is going to start costing the club to provide these benefits on the current fees, LD pointed out the significant cost to the club is the ST discount amongst others The society in essence wasn't meant to benefit the pot other than nominally from these annual subs, they were designed at the outset to offset some of the loss the club would make in offering the benefits (the main goal being a large membership base making up the £1.5m from their joining fee's). I don't see why you would withhold your sub out of principal, surely if the club get it then it then that is the ultimate goal of supporting the team? However as I understand it, for example, 500 of the current members use their 10% off season ticket entitlement then the club bills the society for 500 x £30 (based on those 500 all sitting in the East for simplicity). If you don't take up that benefit then that cash would stay in the society? No? Consequently the £407k raised so far will only grow from increasing the membership base as things stand. , agreed, but not consequently as such , just that this has always been the case , as the annual subs are purely to pay the club for providing benefits, no money remains in the society from those subs' PS were all members not emailed(not called) to consider increasing to next level, I thought it was standard mailing, don't agree with it, like yourself, as I believe the increments are too high, always have I was sure the member who spoke up said he had been called, I'll hang my head in shame if I'm proven wrong. A second proposal was given where if the system was changed to having no benefits however you would gain essentially one annual lottery ticket for every £300 or so you had contributed (The Amber £5k members would get 15) for a major prize (a car was given as an example) then £75k a year could be raised and kept within the society and no doubt growing the pot. Quite a bit of details built up to this point, significant work carried out by the society in year to date, listing memberships gains and work completed etc. but yes it was proposed that, as founding members, would we consider moving away from the annual sub for benefits, to a monthly direct debit payments scheme, to pay an equivalent amount, but the rewards effectively being changed to for example a annual raffle, payments suggested, were roughly speaking a division of 12 of the annual sub: Change annual fees to direct debit: £4.17 steel £12.50 claret £41.67 amber Gives £75k per annum income from current membership base Option to pay more would be encouraged for those that could, please bare in mind that this was proposed after details was given about other clubs who are now going for fan control, and the models the now have Derek or Leeann seemed to suggest that they had investigated DD before the launch and it was deemed after legal and financial advice not possible. One board member suggested that a potential loophole in the legislation due to our status could be exploited to allow it going forward. I think this need an unequivocal definative answer that won't come back to bite us in the future. That £75k figure seemed to be based on the current subscriptions plus subs from the 25% of people who indicated they would join from the questionnaire if it was made easier in terms of paying up their joining fee over time. There didn't seem to be any account for any of the prizes to be purchased for the annual draw (£10k for a car and £5 in ancillary prizes?). For me was flawed and inappropriate to present with the aim to vote.£75k was from current members opting in to monthly payments scheme, this significant change alone would vastly improve the standing of the society at this money all goes straight into society wealth, unlike the current annual payments the change to Direct debits also opens up , the option that any future members get to pay joining fee that way, then switch to lower payments , or indeed explore payments options tha t take longer term, where full membership doesn't apply until a target amount was reached for each member, this would also mean that like founding members , the newer members would then start contributing to funds monthly after completing membership total cost, these numbers are of course forecast , based on survey responses of those that said the would join if payments was easier (25%) and another percentage chunk said likely join, this would mean the monthly divison of annual subs would rise to £180k per annum in future years, optimistic maybe, but many agreed that the principle of society payments going into society funds is the way it should be To be fair I did say "seemed" as I can't recall it being detailed. What I can recall is being told the society gives £40k to the club to cover the benefits it offers (the club as I understand doesn't make money on this) and it was explained that this was unsustainable. It is for that reason I assumed the £75k in subs was from an increased membership because based on the above maths there is £35k of a discrepancy (I took that to be the growing of the membership base). No doubt those such as yourself how default on your annual subs are partly responsible for this. It was laid out the current system was unsustainable, then we were asked to vote if we'd like to keep that or this option 2. I'm reminded of the Eddie Izzard "Cake or Death" sketch. I don't know what they were hoping to achieve but all it did was make me shake my head at how amateur it came across. in no way was it said to be unsustainable, but it was calculated at current growth it would be 2040 to reach £1.5million, and as a society no one could say if that time frame would support the club when required, this is the main point I disagree with you on, we were only asked to vote on whether the society board should take these proposals forward to discussion with the larger group of members, it was hardly comical in how amateur it was, although I suppose if you picture something like the benny hill tune in your head it would have enhanced the event, I'm grateful that the amateurs ( with their specific skills) do this, as I and others didn't volunteer, this is the point that always annoys me at these events however, the majority in the room voted to allow the board to go to the member base, but as always individual voices forced another 45 minutes discussion and a third ways as you allude to below I'm at fault here, the unsustainable feature related to the status quo where the society reimbursed the club for the society benefits that the club lost out on - I should have made that more clear in my original post. I was not referring to the growth of the pot (which you rightly point out is sustainable, but very slow). The amateur elements I referenced were the reliance on 15 month old accounts, the fact that the person concerned with delivering them didn't know the number of current members off the top of their head without referring to notes (I would have hoped that number would roll off the tongue) and the presentation where here is option 1 that we are doing now, its unsustainable. Here is option 2 that will grow the pot by £75k a year, can we vote for those in support of option 1 please? I understand its not best to pursue new members when the structure of the scheme is under investigation to change it however I think exploring cost effective ways to pay for a membership should have been fully examined before looking to change the structure. this statement surprises me, that you consider nothing has been done to explore this, Suppose I have been around these meetings and maybe heard comment that wasn't at every session, but its clear that new ways of payment are to be implemented if the members agree, but the glaring point on the back of that is that it will take too long and the annual payments are being lost to the society The annual payments were never meant to go to the society, as discussed in paragraph one, it was meant to offset the loss the club would incur by offering those benefits to gain members. It's evident that the £5k Amber members who were there didn't seem too impressed, they pursued their investment with the benefits making a major part in the decision making process at the time. It was muted that discussions could be entered with the club where these could be maintained. So if the Steel's move to the pot growing option then we could have a different system in place depending on your input amount. It's been covered before in other threads if we grew out home attendance by 1,200 a game approximately then we would pretty much break even in an average season. Yet again anything associated with this club tends to go for the easy option in pumping those already involved for more money (an example was given where a member was called and asked to increase his membership level) rather than go to increase membership from the harder people who have drifted however have affection and an affinity for Motherwell.Probably for another thread, as this changes nothing about the goals of the society, sure it would slow down the draw on funds, if the club board didn't spend the additional income hosting a magic show in Vegas that they would deserve I take it you are implying that to increase our home attendances by 1,200 is pie in the sky? I hope the patronising tone is by chance and not calculated as it does the debate no service. If we follow our current season ticket marketing strategy then I agree, however proactive targeting of lapsed and fair weather fans could achieve this if resourced and supported in the right way. However you will notice the second part of the paragraph talked about increased Well Society membership and therefore quite right to refer to in this thread. There are people out there who would join if it was made possible with easy to bite payments which I think was overlooked. Simple way to sort it, tickbox at the bottom of your DD mandate, "Do you wish to qualify for benefits package or have your subscription go fully to the Well Society?" I for one signed up to a scheme to buy the club with benefits. I love the club but I don't have bottomless pockets and my generosity only goes so far. It is a business after all.>and that's the crux, every member will consider their own situation, I'd say that most couldn't name the benefits, majority if they could name one would be ST discount, and a significant amount would rather the society grew quicker than save what £20-25 on a book You are ignoring that the quickest way to grow the pot is to get people to join, not grow it by £75k+ per year from subs. Nothing was discussed if removing the benefits would limit that uptake going forward. I'd implore the board to spend their time getting another 900 members from those who already go every week and we're on £800k, 600 lapsed Well fans is another £250k and we're over £1m and on our way. they have spent significant time and effort and in one year gained 120 new members half of which were kids, so no significant boost to the fund, they went and asked those in the support to give them an idea on why they hadn't joined, 887 non-members gave them measured feedback, which meant changing terms, they explored options and looked at best return, changing new member payments terms and switching redirecting on-going payments into society funds was seen as best option, I personally think a couple of minor tweaks would suffice like, using some of the on-going funding to provide rewards would be preferable, but for the life of me , I cannot fathom out why 6 or 7 voices stalled the communication with the wider membership, making the board add an option that could have been added if majority wanted it A number of options should have been presented with detail on what happened at present. Pro's and Con's for each could have been discussed and then voted upon. Come to an AGM with hard and fast ideas to vote on, not something to go away with and work on further then go back to the membership and ask them to vote again, that should be investigated and worked through in depth before bringing it to that meeting. The existing model for me was OK, just needed tweaking so the club and society weren't worse off than they were before it came into being (by which the club covers all its costs associated with benefits and the Society doesn't need to dip into the £407k pot to cover any annual shortfall due to benefits).

From what I could gather last night and I'm going to be a little critical here, the current benefit based system results in the society giving the club around £40k a year to cover the shortfall the club makes in giving money off season tickets primarily. That pretty much takes into account most/all of the renewal subscriptions. Consequently the £407k raised so far will only grow from increasing the membership base as things stand. A second proposal was given where if the system was changed to having no benefits however you would gain essentially one annual lottery ticket for every £300 or so you had contributed (The Amber £5k members would get 15) for a major prize (a car was given as an example) then £75k a year could be raised and kept within the society and no doubt growing the pot. That £75k figure seemed to be based on the current subscriptions plus subs from the 25% of people who indicated they would join from the questionnaire if it was made easier in terms of paying up their joining fee over time. There didn't seem to be any account for any of the prizes to be purchased for the annual draw (£10k for a car and £5 in ancillary prizes?). For me was flawed and inappropriate to present with the aim to vote. It was laid out the current system was unsustainable, then we were asked to vote if we'd like to keep that or this option 2. I'm reminded of the Eddie Izzard "Cake or Death" sketch. I don't know what they were hoping to achieve but all it did was make me shake my head at how amateur it came across. I understand its not best to pursue new members when the structure of the scheme is under investigation to change it however I think exploring cost effective ways to pay for a membership should have been fully examined before looking to change the structure. It's been covered before in other threads if we grew out home attendance by 1,200 a game approximately then we would pretty much break even in an average season. Yet again anything associated with this club tends to go for the easy option in pumping those already involved for more money (an example was given where a member was called and asked to increase his membership level) rather than go to increase membership from the harder people who have drifted however have affection and an affinity for Motherwell. I for one signed up to a scheme to buy the club with benefits. I love the club but I don't have bottomless pockets and my generosity only goes so far. It is a business after all. I'd implore the board to spend their time getting another 900 members from those who already go every week and we're on £800k, 600 lapsed Well fans is another £250k and we're over £1m and on our way.

The league table now shows us in 5th which is getting us to our true levelling off point, however the worrying thing is every other team in the top 5 have pummelled at least once this season. Early December and I've yet to witness anything resembling entertainment at FP.

Aye your spelling and thought process, not really helped that the quote you included didn't have any spelling mistakes, granted there was a lack of apostrophe in "its" and "maths" was incorrectly capitalised. You really aren't doing yourself or your argument any favours.

I'd be happy if people could attend football matches, watch in a safe yet enjoyable way and leave without feeling any way threatened. I'm happy that our club is making a mature and sensible decision regarding this in the circumstances, Celtic's behaviour is photographically documented along with their rap sheet in Amsterdam and antics in Milan ..... along with ours last week in Hamilton. While you pontificate about the best course of action, if you were stood in front of the South in a high viz would you have ejected someone in the middle of that? Unfortunately the cops made a big mistake not clamping down on this mob after they terrorised Tynecastle. It's all about weighing up the situation, of course the police could have kettled them after the final whistle. With respect to this, you've got to realise which battles to fight and which ones to leave when you're fighting a war. (in our case its sustainability and survival, I don't know if you've noticed Scottish football is on its arse) I see your Maths is as good as your spelling.

What an idiotic post. Pumped out both cups, form resulting in our saleable assets not being so attractive come the January window, a good number of people missing matches and now not buying half season tickets and you want to ban 6,500 at £22 odd quid a pop. I would say that the most you could get to come is 100-200 more based on taking the moral high ground, not to mention they'd no doubt boycott us (a la Rugby Park) for a significant time. It's all well to stand on a soap box and very easy to wag a finger when you don't know the financials or basics of running a sustainable business, especially one that faces major cloth cutting. The club followed our desire to vote against Rangers (quite rightly based on all the facts), the proviso was that through Steelmen Forever that fanbase would have to help with the shortfall with things like buy a brick and other initiatives. By making a hoo-ha out of this Accies, SPFL/SFA and the authorities could go to town on us. The club have done the right thing by keeping it on the downlow as it satisfies both clubs management rather than baying to the red mist/green brigades.

Las Thought Nielsen should be sent to the goalkeeping naughty step for the third goal.

Collapse .... Predicted. 3rd goal was socking goalkeeping, for me Hollis can't come back quick enough.

weeyin is totally on the money here. When Ojamaa signed, he was electric for 8 games because nobody knew how to handle or play against him. When his influence dried up I remember thinking, son you have to reinvent yourself every 10 games or so to keep them guessing. I think we're in a position where the current set up is stagnant mainly due to a number of players under-performing. Whither that's down to being played out of position or unfavourable tactics/instructions to suit their own specific game. The only things I can identify are criticisms from our first pre-season friendly, the midfield in terms of creativity, ball winning and covering back was lambasted. That continued on through the European games and pretty much most of the season. Only thing that has masked the shortcomings was the inability of some of our opposition in the same areas of the park. My mantra with McCall from day 1 is he is more concerned with limiting damage than inflicting it. Still won't punt him, just ask him to explain why he is so slow to change style, formations, subs etc.

I'll put that comment down to the fact I hope 1991 was the year you were concieved

Jesus, I think we aren't giving enough credence to how crap a number of other teams are in our league.

I really can't believe what I'm reading in the past few pages. The amount of people who think that "bench-gate" is the main talking point and reason for yesterday and anyone who would have filled those two vacant slots would have made any significant difference to the stagnancy we witnessed on that pitch. With hindsight the decision can be questioned however that starting 11 should have been capable of putting the tie to bed.

This is right on the money. For all those advocating getting rid of him, the cost associated with 18 months left of his contract would be prohibitive and no doubt cost us another 1 or 2 first team players. Anyone remember the list of those who we spoke to after Craig and Archie left and decided to steer clear? A manager with a cup final, and no less than top 4 finishes since he started getting punted and sitting third (granted after a humiliating defeat) getting given the heave-ho wouldn't really instil someone else with much hope for a job with longevity with a fickle employer. A back to basics, ignore our current league position, approach is needed. Our current points tally and Hearts sanction means we are safe come May 2014. So lets start again, look at fostering new tactics, blooding players with genuine hunger and encouraging those who have a pedigree to show us some of it. Tactical nonse, spirit and fight under McCall's stewardship is the way forward. It will come good but when it does is down to endeavour and desire.

Well 4 Europe in the content of his post and sheer size of it shows how much today's "performance" mattered (note I use inverted comma's). I pretty much echo it, the only upsides is a mate who thought he was a live jinx now realises he's not, the sporting conduct of a majority by clapping them and I didn't pay to get in. I am drawn to a post by OnTheFringes after the Celtic game where our lack of ambition, drive and desire was rightly lambasted. For me the rot snowballed there and evidently complacency after last weeks result returned to the team. Some things I can't understand, that little warm up game they play, limited space, one/two touches, zippy, is that for show? Because I can remember 2 occasions where I witnessed smart, snappy interplay. I can remember a few others where players either didn't challenge, the thought of a friction burn or "well they're 40 odd places below us" crept in an influenced their behaviour. ZFA sticks in my mind but that's maybe unfair just on him as it happened repeatedly in front of where I was sitting in the 1st half. A a shit load of metronomic sideways passing creeping 2 yards forward every time. The passing by our team should have been their undoing but it lacked any ambition and was both safe and lazy. I would say if stats of action areas were available there wouldn't be much difference between us and them in the last 20 yards. Don't get me wrong, Albion Rovers either watched a rerun of Aberdeen and placed two banks of players behind the ball ...... However to be fair, at least that night we managed to put a few more 40 yard diagonal punts towards the D to be easily cleared by their centre halves. Either that or they took the approach that against a team with a perceived advantage, you set your stall up to soak up what they can do and counter. Is it right to have the same perceived formation and tactics when McHugh is the primary striker as when Sutton is? Does playing Rovers merit Lawson to be sat in that holding position in front of the defence? Either way, what is self evident, we have no answer to those tactics and the lack of a plan B or C for a team of professionals with the facilities and resources we have available is disgraceful. I had no issue with resting Sutton and starting some of the fringe players, this is a team we should have dealt with (and I mean no disrespect to them and what the achieved), despite lack of experience our U20's should have got a result against them as full timers mainly due to their fitness levels and fact they've been scouted to be selected for professional contracts. No doubt Monday involves Leeann getting that spreadsheet out that's contained behind a glass with "in case of emergency" written on it. This season so far is certainly turning into an "annus horibilus" in terms of performance and fan apathy, however it can be rescued. It pails compared to administration and we have enjoyed a few really good years to put things in context, plus most Well fans have lifted the bar as to our expectations since McGhee. Cup exits at this stage are catastrophic for us financially. I think its clear that the squad will have to be depleted and then we're back in Catch 22 that we've avoided for the past few years, need the players to ensure the placings, can't get the placings to earn the money to pay for those players. What does the rest of this season hold? Well to hold on to our flattering league position and get European football would be a bit of a travesty looking at things on December 1st 2013 even after my red mist has descended. However a trip to some ar$ehole former Russian republic that could cost way more than we could ever hope to make back, maybe its a blessing. I'd have everyone in the football department on double training to break out of this plodding, thoughtless, malaise and foster some type of spirit. I'd start a pre-season-esque bootcamp now and get them improving stamina, fitness, speed doing the football basics (like not being static when there's a shy). If anyone moans, remind the fucker of today's result and send him on another ten laps. While I'm not a fan of McGhee (mainly due to his subsequent ambition to move and how he managed that) he did deliver a team of fit, hungry, spirited players on matchday 1. To continue as we have been is unsustainable and not looking to the future. If you are drawn to remind me of our league position, if to suggest its anything other than flattering, then have a wee chat with yourself.

Ha, good point well put Frazzie! I sense an all expenses paid trip by 10 coucillors to Japan, Qatar, Brazil and Monaco to investigate best practices. In the meantime I'd like to think those currently involved with decision making at FP know that souless places like NDP and St. Mirren's effort are and wouldn't condone us getting something similar.

I don't think it was expansion, it was mixing things up to see if it had a positive result. While there is an argument for if it ain't broken, if our ancestors felt the same we'd still be living in mud huts, chasing our dinner with spears.

Like the white one. I'm not a fan of splitting the claret band up in the home strip above, however I did like the Pony strip with the thinner stripes to the top and bottom.

North Lanarkshire is crying out for a few things: Large shopping development - At present the sizeable population of NL tends to travel to Glasgow (Centre, Fort, Silverburn, Braehead), Hamilton or EK. Cumbernauld is the only place in the county with a diverse number of branded shops, every other town centre is made up of pound shops, tanning salons and takeaways. The amount of revenue that the council misses out due to this and goes into the coffers of City of Glasgow or South Lanarkshire should be considered at stategic level by the council. Restaurants - At present, I can name 5 places in North Lanarkshire I'd happily go for a bite to eat and return to. A couple are chains which doesn't really support small businesses. Venue Space - For meetings and events, exhibitions, large weddings etc. Again, our county isn't really overflowing with them but need a significant investment in facilities such as kitchens that aren't used daily. Based on the fact a football stadium in cross section is a right angled triangle there is a lot of dead space on the ground floor that could no doubt accommodate a number of these things above and make the building itself viable outside matchdays. Not to mention a quality gym and pool that allows people to swim - unlike the Aquatec. (not running down the one in the new regional sports centre in Ravenscraig, just NL could do with an Esporta type, high end gym). I know the council got its fingers burned with Clyde, but I think many would agree there's been a host of mistakes made by both the club and the council with respect to Broadwood. Personally I'd like to see a stadium built with a large public square similar to Nancy in front of a signature main stand building. This would be used as a focus to the area and establish a centre to the new town with other buildings off the square benefiting from it. If any of you have been to Manchester, what they do there in advance of games is excellent. Viable businesses and government too could use the dormant space (thinking of the electoral register using NDP in Hamilton). Get some restaurants involved have it in their lease to provide matchday food, using their kitchens to do so and no doubt making a bit of cash to cover things, no doubt we'd have the best catering at any Scottish ground. All in I reckon the club could look at a 1,000 minimum increase on gates in the first season and a large marketing tool would have to be 6k-12k people being delivered to your doorstep 20 odd times a year.

Just out of interest, behind football and rugby what would be our 3rd and 4th most popular spectator sports in Scotland, shinty and ice hockey?

neg (verb) p. the act of giving someone negative reputation on an internet forum. 1. I see Steelboy has posted again, neg at the ready. 2. Dewell's neg's must be going up quicker than a Blue Peter appeal totaliser.

Well since you threw down the gauntlet .... At present we have a 10-12 week gap from the last competitive match of one season to the next. Why not have the culmination of one season on Boxing Day or Jan 1st (as they help get punters through the gates) and the new season starts in mid/end of March? In the summers where there are championships the league would finish up at roughly the same time as all other European leagues to let players join their international squads. Lower divisions can continue to play attracting SPFL fans to maybe filter some cash down and increasing their attendances. By the time the quarters come round in the big tournaments, the gap to the semi's and final is approx. 10-12 days to allow the teams to rest in between, our senior program could potentially start up again then as I also doubt Scotland could expect to progress from the group stages if we do qualify as our track record says that won't happen any time soon. However in World Cup and Euro years we start the league a month earlier and schedule a few more midweek evening games. (EDIT: I don't know if UEFA or FIFA place bans on domestic football during finals) TV revenues and interest from our neighbour would no doubt help put a little funds into our beleaguered game. Brazilian and co would see 3pm kickoffs more often with odd times to fit round the English teams only at the start and end of a season. Going to the match in a t-shirt on a Wednesday night and walking home in the light has to appeal and would maybe let some cautious parents consent to their kids going. Not to mention keeping the pitch ticking over in the summer with the quicker regeneration and no doubt more conducive surface to good football than a claggy or sandridden mess in early February. I accept that in summer there can be freak weather phenomenon but lets be honest the chances are much more limited than in winter. Overhead costs for club would go down, limiting the use of the undersoil heating, floodlighting, etc. however I accept we'd need to get a few chest freezers to stock raspberry mivvies and Hagen Daz (for the Main Stand). Not to mention the chances of abandoned games for whatever reason goes way down. Bear in mind a lot of places the national team and our European qualifying club teams would go to play in warmer climates our players advantage of playing in a howling Scottish winter and taming it is negated. Surely playing in summer here will better acclimatise us for competition and also, it would be nice to have our first Europa qualifier July in the equivalent of our current Jan/Feb. When the team has gelled, coming off a string of competitive matches and not Morton or East Fife in a friendly. If you were to use Gaelic football in Ireland and switch it to Summer and see how the crowds did then that would be a much better comparison as football here is the most popular sport.

Bit unfair to neg makaveli for raising a debate topic regardless of your views of his track record on here and in the general public sphere. It was valid to ask the question. For me, a country lying approx 54-57 deg of latitude it seems mental with predicted colder winters on the way not to move to summer football. Its a product readily sellable to Sky to fill up airtime down south as they have 4 channels that broadcast some amount of crap in the summer, why not our crap? That would negate the need for and use of artifical turf. However if we stick with the status quo, lot to be said for hosting all our senior and U20 games at Fir Park, being able to train in the stadium and the potential of a slight advantage over visiting teams. Some of the latest pitches sanctioned by UEFA are fantastic and improvements are increasing all the time. I'd also advocate Motherwell moving to Ravenscraig into a purpose built stadium using Tynecastle and Aalesund's ground as a datum, however, so couldn't really be put in the traditionalist camp.

I remember visiting Glasgow and seeing a pipe band in Buchanan Street, the sign beside their open case to catch the busking money exclaimed "Argyll Street Pipe Band - On Tour", raised a smile and ensured cash was deposited. If the lads were to approach the club, get their help and then at the Dundee United game speak to anyone in the first section of the East Stand, advise them of their plans and see if any fans currently sitting there could accommodate it, then move for the Celtic game and essentially be right in the middle of the Motherwell support to kick-start a more boisterous reception than that mob have been used to. I bet in that corner too they could use the first rows of the stand that is cordoned off where they currently are. Just a suggestion of course.

I was pretty happy and looking forward to the season when I saw Vigurs and Lawson come on board, Faddy re-sign and Nielsen. On paper we should have a team that can perform and compete at the top end of a poor league. Looking at the league table that is the case, however I think our league placing is quite flattering for a team that for me hasn't played anywhere near their abilities in any game I have witnessed. Writing was on the wall at Celtic, where we cowered while our contemporaries go there and give it some. Hearts needed a fairytale moment for a guy on his first start and it got it. St. Johnstone away was uninspiring and turgid and tonights game was ruined a little by the sending off however we went 1 up early doors against Aberdeen back in August and they went on to score 3 and rip us a new one. I can't see anything different tonight if our goal counted. Serious soul searching and tactical revamping is required as our best chance was early in the second half when a ball was squared low from the by line and was blocked by the keeper at close range. If that was the case then why persevere with square ball to defender 30-35 yards out, looping ball to 6 yard box, easy clearance. With a team sitting in and soaking up pressure then involvement of Faddy (who wouldn't have been required to put in the same defensive shift as in a standard game) would for me have been key. While he hasn't set the heath alight this season, he is all we have in the creative mould. Many don't rate Vigurs, I do, I think his passing can be pinpoint and our corners now have a potency that didn't exist when Tom Hateley was involved. i think he could have made a difference tonight if played ahead of Lawson. A cup semi would have secured a nice payday to the tune of one senior player that could be added next year. Blown by lack of spirit and ideas.

It just concerns me that there is a need to rest players. If Arnier, Ainsworth and co. were felt that a break was needed at this stage in their career then it's not encouraging. A few worthy comments have been made about McCall so far and while its easy to jump on the bandwagon after a lacklustre display I wonder how many games we've sneaked something due to his tactical nonse and changes. Don't get me wrong, it appear to this layman that those changes come after perseverance for too long. Something is being made of St. Johnstone's defence being makeshift. They had 2 centre halves asked to play 15 yards further right and left of where they normally sit, not a major shock to them Stevie Kirk pulling on a keepers jersey is a major shift in position. It would be novel if we did go out with a game plan and while keeping the what the other team are capable of fresh, set out our stall and let the other team worry about countering us too much rather than vice versa. Finally all the Hollis haters, maybe he isn't that bad after all. While Nielsen wasn't fully culpable for either he was instrumental, I thought the overhead kick could have benefited a punch rather than a parry and Ramsden's back pass again an example of getting the basic's wrong and immediately getting pressure.