Rousseau

The prize money is piss poor, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it: it's simply reflective of our final league position. The TV audience is quite interesting, showing our power in that regard. Surely we should get a bigger share of the money if we're on TV more?

I wasn't impressed with Zeefuik. He reminds me of Christian Nade, big and strong but with no real ability. I reckon Hearts will take him or another SP side, but I doubt he's at a level for EPL/EC.

The Murdoch goal was beautiful: a quick, short one-two with Gallagher and then he curled it into the far top-right corner. Peach.

I don't think restructuring is going to make much of a difference -- apart from the initial novelty -- to attendance levels. The football is shite.

No need for the cynicism, but you're right. It's how it should be. The possession philosophy and 4-3-3 throughout every level is modern, and about time too. Very encouraging.

While nobody can deny that the performances last year were abysmal, I think the football we played was not conducive to success. I actually agree with Law: we we're not ready to go up: we would've been saddled with McCall and been humped every other week. I'm not giving them an excuse because they ultimately take the blame, but the football didn't help some of them. We've lost most of the under-performers now, so we can make a fresh start. I liked what Jig said on SSN last night: he took a lot of stick but it was right taht he did; they were Rangers and they finished 3rd in the Championship -- it's a joke (I paraphrase, but that's the gist of it). Was Law not one of our top scorers? Would that not suggest he was one of the better performers? Pretty low bar, but you know what I mean. (I might have put my foot in it...!!)

I agreed with Pete when he said: To me, both arguments are based on the following premises: TB is suggesting success is when a player makes an appearance; SBS is suggesting success is if a player plays regularly and/or leaves for a significant sum. The conclusion is: TB is therefore suggesting that we have a more successful Academy because we have developed more players that have made an appearance; SBS is suggest therefore that Ajax have a better academy because they have more players playing regularly and/or have left for significant sums. Pete states that: That would mean that TB is right in suggesting it's the number of players to make an appearance that implies success. I don't agree with the conclusion though. Surely there are more professional players currently playing in Europe that have had Ajax links rather than Rangers links? I think there is a caveat in how Ajax have bought older players without technically developing them, but to me that still counts as a 'success' because they are still bringing a young player through to play regularly for the first-team and/or sell them for a significant fee. So TB is correct in suggesting we do have quite a few young players making it professionally, but they are not playing regularly for us or getting us a big transfer fee, so I don't think that can be considered a success. I suppose I prefer SBS's premise, and therefore his conclusion: Ajax has a better Academy. Have I covered everything correctly, or have I misunderstood?

All decent players on FIFA 15. Hmmm... In all seriousness, I like the Scandinavian/Dutch links; decent players and not too expensive.

A 'twin-strikeforce' is dated, unless you can retain a 3-man midfield, which inevitably means playing 3 at the back.

The first sentence got a laugh from me. It sounds very encouraging. Many think Law is piss poor, but perhaps the reason the games did pass him by was because "he [was] continually [watching] a series of high balls being hoofed over his head"?

I think it's interesting how British sides are so reluctant and unsuccessful at playing a different formation. The rigid 4-4-2 is always used because it's pragmatic, but LVG was pragamtic at the WC using a 3-5-2 with the Netherlands because they missed their best midfielder. And not to forget the most pragmatic manager ever, Fabio Capello, who used an 'adventurous' 3-4-1-2 with Roma to utilise Totti and Cafu but retain the 2 DMs won Serie A for the first time in ages. I am wondering if the 4-4-2 is used simply because most British players can't handle a change? I agree that a Man Utd without wingers looks weird, but I think one can still retain the wingers but with another formation. Incidentally, I think LVG playing the 4-3-3 brought better results last year, rather than a 4-4-2.

Sterling is an excellent prospect, but his attitude leaves a lot to be desired. Of course, I don't know if it's him or his advisors. At 20, I think the best thing for his career is to stay at Liverpool, get games and develop for another couple of years. Liverpool have got an excellent deal. I've never had a problem with the high transfer fees, because I always think that if someone is willing to pay it then that's the price -- it's not an indicator of value. But £49m for Sterling I think is ridiculous; not because of the fee but because I don't think he's worth it. Rooney was worth £27m at 18 (IIRC?), but was a better 'all-round' player; Bale was too much because Ronaldo is better and wasn't as high a fee; Zidane was bought for £48m, but was one of the best players in the world. I would like to see a weighted comparison between these transfer fees. The steady increase has skewed their value.

He actually plays 4-2-3-1, and that formation would demonstrate where players are/were played more accurately, but I understand why you used 4-4-2 though db.

Perhaps the Armenian league is a better league than we think, and the Scottish league is lesser than we think. I think our estimation of the SPFL is based on the performance on the Old Firm. The Old Firm can/should be getting to the CL Group Stages, our domestic rivals can give us a game every once and a while, therefore 'Scottish' sides are not much worse. The truth is the Old Firm are on another level. The rest of the SPFL are on a level with Armenia. The irony is both are blaming the other for their failures. The Old Firm are being held back, the rest are being squeezed out of prize money. Like you said, we all know the state of the game in Scotland, so it shouldn't come as a surprise, but it's still a slap in the face. We like to believe we're better because what's the point in 'analysing', following and getting so wrapped up in the drama when we're so poor? It becomes an existential question.

These European qualifiers are always a sharp dose of reality. Scottish sides are poor. It's actually embarrassing how poor we are. And I don't know how long we can continue in this way.

We have always been a selling club, but our 'success' over the years has been average to poor. I can only remember Boumsong, Hutton and Cuellar that have genuinely been a success in this regard. We must do better. However, I think we have the right manager and youth coach (What's Mulhollands title and name!?) to improve our record in acquiring young hungry players and develop our own young players that we can sell on. However, I think the way we have done it over the years has been dependent on luck; picking a good player on a free that has been missed by others -- Boumsong and Cuellar were not developed by us. It is hardly a science. We must learn to 'develop' young players, whether that be our own or others from abroad. Ajax have the best model. They target young players, but they develop them into better players; and more importantly they develop them into players that can play roles in the first team. We must omit the last 5 years in any comparison as we have been making short-term decisions over that period, but generally we've been ineffective and dependent on luck. We must learn to actually 'develop' players instead of picking good players already. Once we learn to do this we will achieve greater success in our 'selling'.

Young players develop. Just because they are not good enough just now doesn't mean they won't be eventually (of course it also doesn't mean they are/will be good enough either). All the great sides have young players step up into the first team without being anywhere near the finished product. I believe any player can play a role for the team, without being the finished product. Pedro was a young player that came through the Barca youth set-up and was never the best player in that generation, but he had raw ability (he was and is not the most skillful or technically gifted player IMO, but he has certain attributes that allowed him to contribute) and was able to play a role that suit the team. This is my idea of a 'team'; a group of players that are able to play together, and get the best out of each other. I dislike this concept of the team as a product of individuals that 'customers' come to watch -- "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts." A loan signing is not a player on which to build your team; it's too short-termist. However, as a stop-gap, or as a way of achieving an objective, I don't have a problem. Our goal is to reach the Premiership next year, and if to do that we have to sign a player or two on loan then so be it. The best situation would be for us to acquire a player on loan -- of better quality than we have -- with the option of a permanent deal afterwards. I'm not sure how realistic that is however? Of course, there is also the possibility that seeing a better player in training and on the pitch every week can inspire the other players in the team.

I'll do the Alloa game.

The better players would've been sold, but at a good profit, like Hutton, but the 'lesser' players could've still been contributing.

Am I right in thinking that there were a few players that came through at the same time as McCormack and Adam? Was Hutton and Shinnie etc. part of that 'group'? If so, it would appear we were just poor at spotting a talent because all went on to play at a 'decent' level. I always believe that any player can play a role. It doesn't have to be a starring, creative role, but simply a squad role etc, no matter what their ability. There has to be a mix of star players and the workers. When I look back at the players that left over the years, I wonder if we had a better coach/manager if any would still be in the squad, playing at a decent level. McCormack or Adam could've done a job when required.

I'm not going to criticise the man: He has been a good servant over the years, no matter what anyone says. It's time for a clean break though.

I think SBS is right in stating the calibre of player in the Premiership is the equivelent of League 2/National League in England. That calibre of player is adequate to challenge for top 3 in the Premiership. Just look at Inverness: their squad is almost entirely made up of League 2 players and they've apparently been a 'revelation'. It would be logical therefore to suggest that acquiring players from the Championship would be good enough to challenge C*****. We have been or are looking at signing players from that level (Kiernan, Eusace, Foderingham, Dallas, Wabarra etc.), so I think it's entirely possible that we are "signing players that can challenge for the top title." I also think the management team is being overlooked. I believe a decent manager can get a group of average players playing exciting, winning football; especially in Scotland. Our current squad under-performed spectacularly, but I think it's fair to say that they are better than what they've shown. Again, a decent manager will get them playing more to their full potential. As for struggling to win the Championship, I can't see it. We were piss poor last year and still managed to just miss out on second. Hearts were far the best side, and with them gone I can see our current side challenging Hibs, not comfortably, but competitively. It's funny, I've taken the same 'facts' as trublusince1982 and come to a completely different conclusion. I think Warburton will get us promoted and get us playing a certain way to finish second in the Premiership. I think the signings thus far and the calibre of rumoured targets suggest this is possible. I think exciting football will come regardless of any major change -- I think it's solely based on the Manager's philosophy.

I think it goes deeper than that. The Scottish (even British) football culture overlooks players like McKay because of their diminutive stature, preferring more physical attributes. Young Jack Harper being overlooked for the Scottish U-19s (?) because he is 'too small' despite playing, and starring, for Real Madrid Youths epitomises the situation.

I think it goes deeper than that. The Scottish (even British) football culture overlooks players like McKay because of their diminutive stature, preferring more physical attributes. Young Jack Harper being overlooked for the Scottish U-19s (?) because he is 'too small' despite playing, and starring, for Real Madrid Youths epitomises the situation.

I think it's very unusual to have an entire squad replaced in time for a full pre-season. I will admit to expecting a few more. But I think we've done good business. Like I said, I'm not overwhelmed, but I'm certainly not disappointed. Plenty of time left. And, we've got a few guys close to signing and another couple training with us (IIRC?), so I suppose we do technically have a few more in for a 'full pre-season'. I think we've improved the squad. We do need more numbers though. I agree. I'm not concerned though -- I think we've done good business so far. I would expect to see a bit a money spent over the next couple of weeks. That is certainly true, but we've hardly spent anything so I don't think that matters. What does matter is that the standard of player in the lower leagues in England are better than the Scottish Premiership -- IMO. Your statement surprised me because I thought we were all looking for transfers from England, instead of Scottish transfers. I suppose you are right though.