Yes or No

[deek5trans]

The general club ambition and the ambition for this season are two different things. The club is doing fantastic things off the field no questions.

We have lost a wage with not having a assistant manager. We are a number of players down from when we started the season so more wages saved. Such a small squad yet we have a player out on loan. As previous,no assistant which is bizzare.


Lots to play for but didn't bother to strenghen in january this is where the disappointment comes from.
If we scrape 4th it will be some achievement with the depth of squad we have.

[Auld_Chippy]

Probably a reluctant NO from me. A lot of people are slagging the club for the fact that Kerr and Baird have joined Falkirk. They wanted out and the Club was right to let them go. It's not as if the Club sold them to Falkirk, they were free agents and could sign for who they wanted, although the players probably had the move settled before they left us. Baird has scored goals since he joined them but I would say Falkirk's revival and subsequent threat to our play-off hopes started before this pair went there. Should we have signed a replacement for Baird? In hindsight, probably, but like a lot of fans I thought that the players returning from injury and the addition of Millar would provide enough options to see us safely through the remainder of the season. Raith Rovers have also struck a decent vein of form and are adding to the pressure.
Hopefully we can get back to winning ways, but it would be nice to think that Falkirk's form will suffer a late dip also. It may be our only hope.

[Bluehome]

The players returning from injury were an irrelevance because they were all available when Baird signed in the summer and nobody said then that we didn't need another striker.
There were only 2 realistic destinations for Baird - Raith and Falkirk, both of whom were rivals for 4th and he had just left Raith. If the club is saying that they didn't know where he might go when he left then the best you could descibe that argument is naive.

[Auld_Chippy]

The players returning from injury were an irrelevance because they were all available when Baird signed in the summer and nobody said then that we didn't need another striker.
There were only 2 realistic destinations for Baird - Raith and Falkirk, both of whom were rivals for 4th and he had just left Raith. If the club is saying that they didn't know where he might go when he left then the best you could descibe that argument is naive.

I can't see how the players returning from injury can be an irrelevance. They were all recognised 1st team regulars last season and would have surely featured heavily if they had not picked up injuries pre-season or early in the season. Among them were players who could play as strikers and we also have Russell who has played most of his career in that position.
As for Kerr and Baird leaving, I'm sure if the money was right and they had been approached,they would have considered several options and

[Bluehome]

The players returning from injury were irrelevant to the decision about whether or not to replace Baird. They were all here when he signed in the fist place. Losing Baird meant there was no cover up front. And if Russell was meant to replace Baird, a replacement should have been brought in as cover for Russell.

There was nowhere else for Baird to go other than Falkirk. He effectively gave up a full-time contract, so everybody knew he was going somewhere. The only full time teams he could have joined were Raith and Falkirk. However, I may have overlooked somebody, so what were his other options? The Scottish premiership? Morton? Down south?
It was exactly the same as selling him to Falkirk, but without the fee because they must have known there was nowhere else for him to go.
He could have been paid to stay at home until we decided what to do with him. His option would have been to come back with his tail between hs legs, or sit it out until the summer.
It would have served u

[Auld_Chippy]

[quote="Bluehome"]The players returning from injury were irrelevant to the decision about whether or not to replace Baird. They were all here when he signed in the fist place. Losing Baird meant there was no cover up front. And if Russell was meant to replace Baird, a replacement should have been brought in as cover for Russell.

There was nowhere else for Baird to go other than Falkirk. He effectively gave up a full-time contract, so everybody knew he was going somewhere. The only full time teams he could have joined were Raith and Falkirk. However, I may have overlooked somebody, so what were his other options? The Scottish premiership? Morton? Down south?
It was exactly the same as selling him to Falkirk, but without the fee because they must have known there was nowhere else for him to go.
He could have been paid to stay at home until we decided what to do with him. His option would have been to come back with his tail between hs legs, or sit i

[Bluehome]

Going over old ground but just a couple of points -
There is no way he'd have stayed beyond the summer if he wasn't getting picked.
And he couldn't be a bad influence if he was sat at home.
However, the main point is that we wouldn't have been keeping him for the hell of it. We would have been preventing Falkirk from having him thereby denying them points which might prove to be the difference between them finishing above us or not.
And it isn't with the benefit of hindsight that people are saying we should have signed a replacement, it was said at the time.
I do agree that he was a legacy of McIntyre, and not the only one that might end up costing us a play-off place.