David

I always felt his best position was simply as back-up for Van Veen. He never looked comfortable playing on the wing, which is where a few managers decided to use him, so they must have seen something in him or were just incredibly short of options. This summer we'll definitely be losing Crankshaw and Obika when their loan periods end, and we could potentially also be losing Efford, Aitchison, and Mandron who are all out of contract. If Kettlewell likes the look of him and he continues scoring in the Championship he could still have a future here if he wanted it.

Never assume anything 👀

The harsh truth is that not every managerial appointment is going to work out. Hammell obviously talked a good game and he must have had some decent ideas to even get close to the job, but it's a different "kettle" of fish entirely to put them into action. He's maybe just not cut out for management. Not every ex-player is. Good luck to him in whatever he ends up doing next.

Seems like a few of our up & coming youngsters are attracting attention as well as Johnston. Lennon Miller and Jevan Beattie.

I don't know why, but this feels different. Hammell got us a few wins, and we looked decent enough, but the team seems completely revitalised now under Kettlewell.

Even in the short time Kettlewell has been in charge of the first team, if we think he's just going to go back to coaching the kids and remain there for the foreseeable we're mental. Other clubs will have noted his performance and how he's handled himself. He'll be at a Premier League or Championship club as manager when next season kicks off.

Not quite the 5-1 scudding you were expecting, eh?

That's true in some cases, but you also find that often agents are very wary of appearing to put their interests first in the slightest, simply because if a player gets a whiff of that they dump the agent in question and move to someone else. Any player with a hint of a decent future will have other agents and agencies hovering around waiting for the slightest hint of a relationship breakdown so they can try to snap them up. Also, players talk to each other. If there's an agent or agency that starts to get a reputation for looking after themselves first and trying to railroad players into deals they maybe aren't keen on it doesn't take long for the word to spread and said agent to start losing business. There is a general view among fans that players are these gullible, naive happy-go-lucky guys who are being taken advantage of by evil agents, but the truth more often than not is that the agent is a stressed out, exasperated individual who is trying to bend over backwards to accommodate a player who thinks he should be getting the kind of treatment and respect afforded to world class players. Nah, the players end up doing exactly what they want to do. I'd wager that more often than not the player will force through his own ideas even if the agent is giving him solid advice to the contrary.

No confrontation from me, I think I was perfectly pleasant. Maybe the way you read it? I could have said the same with your initial reply, but it's just words on a screen. No way of telling tone or whatever. I'm just pointing out that contrary to what most fans think, the agents aren't the bad guys most of the time. Don't get me wrong, they're happy to be portrayed as such, but they're simply looking after the welfare of their client.

Indeed. There is no benefit to the board of going for "the cheap option" as they're simply spending the funds we have available. This isn't Mike Ashley deciding he doesn't want to finance a decent manager and keep the money in his own pocket.

Yeah, without agents players were regularly shafted by savvy club owners and overbearing managers, and many of them went on to retire without a penny to their name. A player should know what else is out there. They deserve to know the options they have, and then it's their call to decide if they wish to forego a raise in finances to perhaps secure more first team football, or if they want to take the money now in the knowledge that it's a short career. I've said it elsewhere, but fans are terrific at moaning about good players who refuse a new deal in order to earn more elsewhere, but have absolutely zero qualms about seeing players who don't make the cut binned off and forgotten about. Basically, any player will do well to think of themselves and their families. The rest is just background noise.

Scottish football is what it is. It's a league where most players are paid the equivalent to lower league wages down south, and if you remove the Old Firm from the equation we're a league befitting the size of our country. I think sometimes fans up here see the stuff on offer on Sky and draw comparisons, which is totally unfair.

I've seen the "cheap option again" patter trotted out a few times now, with Kettlewell and Hammell before him. Here's my question. What does that mean? I can understand fans saying that when it's a club owned by a rich individual or whatever, and they're not keen on throwing away millions on a manager, but that's not where we're at. What benefit would the board draw from sacrificing the right candidate to save a few quid? Why would we go for "the cheap option?"

I've seen the mention of agents being involved, which will obviously be the case, but it's worth remembering that the agents work for the player. Not the other way around. More often than not the agent is portrayed as the bad guy (or girl) when a player moves, a role they're happy to accept as it protects their client, but make no mistake, no player goes anywhere against their will. It's the players call, and the players families call.

Yeah, I really hope we do.

He is playing. I just pointed out that he's started five of a possible eight games, and has played a role in every game since his return. I could understand the concern if we'd brought him back and he'd sat on the bench as an unused substitute, or had played ten minutes here or there for the majority of those games but that's not the case. We've played four games in two weeks. He's started two of them. And in the two he was a substitute he came on after 27 minutes and 45 minutes. It's not about how well he's been playing, it's about game time management. It happens at lots of clubs, and especially with younger players where the impetus is in bringing them on but not burning them out. I guarantee that if he keeps performing as he is we'll see him start more and more games as the season goes on.

I could understand that line of thinking if he sees more bench time than starts in the coming weeks and months. I wasn't meaning you in my reply by the way, as it was others who were saying it beggars belief that Johnston has been benched a few times. I think starting five out of eight since his return isn't too bad in all honesty, and will hopefully increase as the season progresses. He's only turned 19 I think, and I'm sure the coaching staff will be keeping a close eye on him to ensure that he's given the correct amount of game time and isn't "overplayed" to any extent. On the contract front we should absolutely be doing all we can to get him tied down on a deal that reflects his position as the future in his position.

I sometimes wonder if fans think our management teams heads button up the back. Do you not think that Hammell etc knew Johnston is a good player? Who was it that sanctioned his early return to the club last month? He's been involved in eight games since he returned, starting five and coming off the bench in three. As has been mentioned, you don't just chuck young players in there and have them play every single game. Johnston has had plenty of game time since his return.

Even the great Jurgen Klopp has been "found out" so it happens to the best of them. I'd still rather a manager who does well enough to eventually get found out than a manager who doesn't do well enough to even reach that point.

And with good reason. The very fact that no one else in the bottom six has conceded less goals than us is in large part down to Kelly. Throw in the absolute dugshit defences he's been playing behind and that fact becomes even more noteworthy. We've seen enough from him to know that he's solid enough 95% of the time. Now isn't the time to try out another keeper to see if he's any good or not.

They did do okay. It's only once Kettlewell was handed the reigns on his own that the wheels came off. If you look at his record there as sole manager it was very similar to Hammell's. Both had around six months in the job, both of them won the same amount of games in that timeframe, and their winning percentage was quite similar (25% for Hammell and 29% for Kettlewell). The only difference was Kettlewell was bumped when County were four points adrift at the bottom. I've seen a few folk commenting on how he came across in that press conference. I'll tell you what, I saw Graham Alexander described as "arrogant" but Kettlewell managed to outdo him by some margin. When a manager says three times in 15 minutes "not to sound arrogant here..." you know he fancies himself as a top coach. The only difference, of course, is that Kettlewell has pretty much fuck-all by way of a record to back up such an attitude. Alexander had an arrogance about him, and his football was dire to watch, but his overall career win percentage is 43%, and he's guided two teams to promotion and reached a play-off and cup final down south. Plus guided us to a top six finish and European football. Remember those heady days? 👀

The problem there is that the manager we'd perhaps want to try to bring us back up maybe isn't the same manager we'd want to take us into another premiership campaign if we avoid the drop.

We're just one of a few teams this season who aren't performing. We've replaced good and decent players with others who aren't as good. In the past we were lucky enough to be able to identify players who were within our budget, and who fit together well as a team and who managed to stay relatively fit for much of the season. While luck alone certainly doesn't determine who stays up and who goes down, it does play a part. This season we've missed the likes of Jake Carroll, Bevis Mugabi, Nathan McGinley, and Joe Efford through injury for long spells. We signed Moult which didn't work out, and we've signed both Blaney and Mandron who almost immediately got injured. A lot of that is down to bad luck, probably coupled with questions over our fitness and coaching staff, but it's all been factors in where we are this season. If you listen to Callum Davidson talking last season when St Johnstone were facing a relegation scrap he talked at length about injuries, bad luck and so on. No team finds themselves in our position without those aspects being a factor. I've seen people talking about an experienced manager being the answer. Derek McInnes and Malky Mackay are two of the more experienced and savvy operators in the league yet they're down here alongside us fighting it out for survival. There is no singular and simple answer to this. It's a mixture of different factors that all clubs who find themselves in a relegation battle face.

And in the process let him live out his "arrogant fantasy" remember.

Much like sticking with Alexander to when we did was a mistake. I said we should have either parted ways in the summer, or stuck with him until around December to see how we would do. We're now on the verge of making the same mistake with Hammell. We either should have changed direction before the January window, or stick with him the rest of the season. Allowing him to bring in seven players to suit how he wants to play then binning him will be a disaster. There's no other option.