weeyin

I'd imagine there are many candidates we want. Most of them currently employed, and a number of them who wouldn't want the job right now. Why risk taking on a team in relegation trouble in March when you can, hopefully, take the job in the summer when the fate is decided.

If it is the case, he probably wasn't handed it sooner because they wanted to check out all their options, see who applied, see who was available, see who might be interested in the summer and/or see how he handled the KIllie and Aberdeen games. That's certainly what I would do.

Every suggestion I have had has been turned down on the basis that the meeting room doesn't have good enough internet or phone connectivity. That may well be true, in which case options are limited. If we do have some kind of phone or internet available then we might be in business. There are quite a few internet options available like Slack, Google Hangouts, Skype etc. that are free (or cheap) that allow long distance users the ability to participate. Even audio only would be a step forward. Would probably require investing a decent mic or two for the speakers, but that would definitely help. There are limits on the numbers of people that can join in the free versions of these apps, but with time differences etc. I suspect we won't get too many people calling in for any given meeting. For something more professional, there are many conference call services available that let people dial in - usually a free number - and participate directly. I expect they would be pricier (unless any telecoms sponsors could assist) so I can understand why that may not be an ideal solution. Using Periscope for the last couple of meetings was a big step forward - even though we couldn't actively participate, it made a big difference to be able to watch the proceedings. Even if there was a moderator who could monitor a live skype chat room where we could post questions while watching the Periscope stream, that might be a way forward.

The official answer was that the Society is not expecting to be repaid. That was just an example, though, of the kind of question that can be submitted and asked, but doesn't lend itself well to submission if there isn't a follow-up available.

Unfortunately, submitting questions remotely isn't really helpful as often they are misinterpreted or the answer isn't clear. And without the ability to follow up with a clarification or expansion (from the questioner or the responder), then you often don't really get a satisfactory answer. So, for example, when somebody asked about how the Society funded the club, the response discussed loans that weren't expect to be repaid. While that goes some way to answering the question, it immediately opens up a number of other questions such as: How is reflected on the clubs books as far as income? When we budget to break even, does the budget include the income from non-repayable loans? If we are lending the club money every year with no intention of asking for it back, does that mean we have to be paying money into the Society every year to keep the club afloat? etc. All of this could easily be raised and discussed in person, but impossible if all you get is a question asked on your behalf with no follow-up.

Regarding the speed of the appointment, unless we had a contract signed with a replacement before McGhee was punted, I don't see anything unusual in the time it's taking. If we were looking at anyone who's currently employed, then even speaking to them can take a number of days. If it was by application only, then it easily takes a week to get all the applications submitted. If it was a combination of applications and reaching out to a few people to gauge their interest, then that adds time to the process too. And then there's the small detail that even when people apply, and get to an interview, they don't always want to take the job. Whether or not Robinson gets the gig, the win against Killie took the pressure off a quick hire. I'd rather we get it right than get it fast.

If I get to choose, I'll choose 3 please. I suspect it will be a hard fought, slightly uninspiring match, but I'll settle for that if we edge a win. (Looking at our last 10 league matches, we won one of them 2 - 0, and the other 9 have either been draws or a 1 goal margin for the winners. And neither team has managed to score more than twice).

Exactly. Considering how many times we have been through this process in the past few years, you'd think people understand by now that what is written in the papers is based mostly on speculation and agents of managers looking to keep their profile active. Non-attributed stories lacking in quotes mean less than nothing. No need to get concerned - the time for that is after the appointment has been made

His loyalties lie with his U20 coach contract and his BT contract I'm sure. I doubt he's allowed to skip a legally binding commitment because Motherwell decided to sack McGhee. If he missed an U20s game, that would be a different matter.

Your're just getting old. Don't sweat it. I still think of Andy Walker as being young, and he's 51 and left us in 1987;

They made a big deal of overseas fans joining in the early days of the Society, but we haven't exactly been top priority. It took years before we even had a mechanism to contribute financially and we can't actively participate in any Society meetings.

If we could score more than zero or one per game it would be less of a problem. It's a team game and defence is only half of the equation.

That has been the case since the McCall days. The difference being we were scoring plenty under his reign. I have been saying all season that our lack of goals has been as big a problem as our porous defence.

Robinson has made his case in regard to toughening the mentality of the squad and that may be enough to secure the post until the end of the season. I wouldn't be against that, although not my first choice. If the best choice isn't available, however, it makes sense to have a short term solution in mind as well as a longer term option.

Nice to see Forbes doing well. Never any doubt he had talent, the question marks were always around the physicality and stamina the modern game requires.

Aye, which was why it was doubly annoying to have 2 players booked last week for mouthing off to the ref at Killie's pen.

This season's ambitious League 1 club is next season's struggling Championship club. Of course there are some toxic situations out there, but I'm sure if he sits tight for a few months there will be attractive options available for him over the summer.

He may or may not mean it, but he'd have to be an idiot to say he doesn't want his current (and potentially future) boss to get the job.

Sacked for having a team in 8th spot go 4 wins, 4 losses and 2 draws in their last 10 games. I'd take a punt on him, but I'd be surprised if he doesn't get a few good offers from down south.

If it ever gets to the stage where we have an online poll to sack/keep a manager, I am leaving the Society. That is no way to run a club. We need people on the Board who can address these issues, not mob rule. Of course there should be consultation on some issues, but we need to be careful we don't turn it into The X-Factor.

Robbery. They offered me 112358/1.

I doubt even playing 2 keepers will prevent a defeat, but I like your thinking.

Pro Tip: In Firefox, just cut and past the URL into a Private Window (Ctrl+Shift+P to open one, or select it from the File menu). You can open any Herald link that way, I expect it works in other browsers too such as Incognito Mode in Chrome.

The thing is, you need the experienced players in the team to help blood the youngsters. I think we are moving in a positive direction in that regard, however, and the new manager will need to continue that progress.

Whether you like Hughes or not, he has a pretty decent track record with various Scottish clubs. People tend to judge him by the way he comes across in the media rather than his results on the park.