weeyin

Beside the owner.

The infrastructure we have put into the club in the last few months is the most professional we have had for years. Just because it hasn't provided instant results doesn't mean it's not better than it was. You don't just put a successful team together over the summer. If you did, the SPFL would be full of them every August.

Supposedly, left mid is Taylor's preferred position, but will interesting to see if that's how it pans out.

The Society loans money to the club. Apart from the first year where the mechanism wasn't in place and they had to buy shares instead.

Douglas Park on derby day was never an easy venue, and laying comedy clown turf instead of grass definitely gives a home advantage. It's never going to be an easy game, but we do need to break through the psychological barrier and stuff them.

Apparently.

Gaffer said last week he was back in training. I imagine even if he's fit, though, he won't be going near the fake grass this weekend.

He did also say he'd prefer a permanent signing to a loan, so maybe Ripley and Taylor are being punted back to their home clubs in January and we can sign another mid in the next window.

I know many people disagree, but I think the defence's subsequent performances after Dan signed full time back up my theory. By your theory, they should have been confident and settled.

It can (and is by me) be equally argued that our change in fortunes in conjunction with Dan's loan spell was Dan's good luck because the team hit some good form. We didn't hit good form because of Dan. For example, Faddy's performance in the Thistle game was not Dan related.

While there's no doubt the new gaffer has been given access to extra resources, I don't know it would fall under "everything he could possibly want" - especially as we were outbid on some midfield options that would have done a good job for us. I think people underestimate the time it takes to rebuild a bad team, and am not surprised by the slow start to this season. As I posted in other threads, Tommy McLean's first season in the SPL was dire (saved from relegation by reorganization) and he had access to plenty of resources. His next few seasons were mostly a struggle too.

He certainly hasn't been able to tighten up our defence much.

Steelmen Online's weeyin will read Jay's blog entry,

But don't we prefer our own players over loanees?

If 2 of the strikers are sold on for 500k each, I'd imagine they'd be in favour.

There's plenty of youngsters that are bell-ends. I don't mind the club taking a chance on that if they feel they can instill a bit of discipline and humility into someone. Still disappointing to here he hasn't taken it on board yet. Anyone remember Paul Mills who played for us in the 80s (when we were in the First Division)? Seemed like a real talent, and every senior player was raving about him, but always with the qualifier "if he applies himself" and "if he keeps his head screwed on" etc. He scored the last minute winner for us in a game against Dunfermline (crap ref, down to 10 men), but disappeared shortly after. Never resurfaced with another club, and can only assume he didn't apply himself. Let that be a lesson to all the U20s. It takes more than talent.

He was injured for a while, no? Anyway, Craigan has been keen to point out that some of our guys aren't quite ready to make the step up yet. I imagine it's easier for attackers like Thomas than defenders like Watt to make that step up, because you have more scope to drift in and out of games when you are an attacking player.

Logically you'd think Dan was about to be bumped, unless there is a long term injury to someone we don't know about. I'm guessing Clarkson was bought as the experienced head when it looked liked Skippy wouldn't be coming back. I agree, on current form it looks like we'd be better off without those 4, though.

What's our signing policy got to do with the tenner a month?

Predictabilty in itself a bad thing if you are executing at a high level. The bigger problem is we aren't even executing the basics. Baraclough seems at least aware of the guys he needs to substitute each week, but would be better if he started with the better lineup instead.

Closed last night.

To me, it looks like McManus thinks he doesn't need to give it 100%. Not so much that he's being lazy - just not as committed. When the chips were down in the play-off, his focus and intensity shot-up and he looked like the player I hoped he would be.

Most frustrating thing about McManus for me is he is prone to lapses in concentration a couple of times a game that often cost us a goal. When he's concentrating, he can be an asset.

Nah, just a few laughing at the mob that wanted him straight in the team the day after we signed him.

Grimshaw has never played a game of first team football in his life. Maybe he needs a week or two to find his feet - like Taylor should have been given.