Naismith - aims for return against Rangers ( updated )

[Inch Hearts]

24 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

I imagine the last minute move of Lafferty and the literal non arrival of Vanacek at the end of the summer window followed by the effective non arrival of Vanacek during the winter window impacted oprions somewhat. 

 

Surely the club where prepared for Lafferty leaving when all indications where he was going to leave?  Was Vanacek Laffertys replacement? If so it would be great to know based on what. 

[siegementality]

1 hour ago, davemclaren said:

The problem with backup plans is that unless you test them thoroughly before you need them then you are never sure if they work. 

Every team has a back up plan. It’s called a squad of players.

 

Our problem is that we have a very, very good player being replaced by a poorer one. When you have a squad that is often the case, however the gulf in quality between Naismith and any replacement is huge.

 

A better quality of squad player should have been the back up plan.

Edited May 8, 2019 by siegementality

[Ribble]

4 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

Some players need a good kick up the backside but some need a different approach and a good coach will know which to adopt but in my humble opinion CL chose the wrong one. 

 

That's the thing, sometimes a manager can't win. Give a player a kick up the backside and they hide, take a softly softly approach and the player takes the ****.

 

CL's approach has long been the former with the like's of Paul Hartley citing a roasting from Levein and 6 weeks in the reserves as the turning point in his career!

[georgiehearts66]

40 minutes ago, Sid said:

 

The back up plan was : 

1. keep Lafferty unless we get a replacement which we were stitched up on and lost Lafferty with no time to replace at that guaranteed level when Vanecek deal got delayed. 

2. Bring in Uche - but he gets injured

3. Mitchell will create more down wing - but he didn’t and got injured and went home 

4. If we need to, we can keep out goals, But Berra got injured. But Souttar got injured.

5. That’s ok. We’ve got Dunne. But he got injured and went home. 

6. Vanecek arriving January. Proven current scorer in similar level league - but he went on the lash and hasn’t recovered. 

7. Midfield creativity from Haring and Djoum has not materialised. Haring hernia all year. Djoum hot and cold. 

 

While hindsight says we should have known proven players would not perform as expected and we would have multiple over-lapping long-term injuries in key positions, we don’t have hindsight (or a massive budget for “just in case we lose our 4th choice centre half” planning) so it’s been a tough year to manage.

 

Bringing in “one or two” spare Naismith’s is far beyond our budget - as some have noted - he is above our budget!

 

Doesn’t matter how much you hate Levein, with what has happened to us, we would have performed below our target whoever was in charge but keep laying every bit of it on his doorstep. 

 

This!

[Robbo-Jambo]

2 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

 

Let's face it though - this sort of comment is bollocks from our club. Just reeling out cliches and saying what they think they're supposed to say.

 

The reality of our recruitment is staring us in the face.

It is bollocks because it has not happened.

 

Spout a load of pish about how far they look into a players character etc. Eg. Vanacek.

 

Ok if he made a massive mistake by turning up like a mess in January but where is his right kind of character to get himself sorted out in nearly 4 months.

 

He cant even stand out playing for the reserves never mind a place on the bench at a time where we could really do with another striking option.

 

Turning into an embarrassment when Levein said he was excited about him arriving and the player himself giving it large on social media what he was going to do in the Scottish league over the next few months

[dazajmbo]

Back on topic....

[Inch Hearts]

36 minutes ago, Sid said:

 

The back up plan was : 

1. keep Lafferty unless we get a replacement which we were stitched up on and lost Lafferty with no time to replace at that guaranteed level when Vanecek deal got delayed. 

2. Bring in Uche - but he gets injured

3. Mitchell will create more down wing - but he didn’t and got injured and went home 

4. If we need to, we can keep out goals, But Berra got injured. But Souttar got injured.

5. That’s ok. We’ve got Dunne. But he got injured and went home. 

6. Vanecek arriving January. Proven current scorer in similar level league - but he went on the lash and hasn’t recovered. 

7. Midfield creativity from Haring and Djoum has not materialised. Haring hernia all year. Djoum hot and cold. 

 

While hindsight says we should have known proven players would not perform as expected and we would have multiple over-lapping long-term injuries in key positions, we don’t have hindsight (or a massive budget for “just in case we lose our 4th choice centre half” planning) so it’s been a tough year to manage.

 

Bringing in “one or two” spare Naismith’s is far beyond our budget - as some have noted - he is above our budget!

 

Doesn’t matter how much you hate Levein, with what has happened to us, we would have performed below our target whoever was in charge but keep laying every bit of it on his doorstep. 

 

 

How did the club get stiched up with Lafferty leaving?  It was obvious he was going from the end of last season.  Vanacek Levein gambled and decided not to pay the fee required to get him in the summer.  That’s his fault. 

 

Uche Has been available the majority of the season and is contributing to the brutal peformances over the whole.  

 

Mitchell’s loan was a disaster this season, he didn’t even get replaced at all either.

 

Berra and Souttar shouldn’t be instrumental in terms of the style of football we play - the actual fact they are tells it’s own story.

 

The midfield creativity unfortunately is the managers fault, he brings the players in to the club and clearly doesn’t trust anyone else to play anything other than pass and punt.

 

I meant one or two similar types of players to Naismith or anyone who can put their foot on the ball and play football - Scott Allan was available for next season for instance. 

 

Why would I hate Levein? For what reason at all? It makes no sense and it doesn’t make it more meaningful saying it over and over.  The football has been torrid the majority of the season without Naismith.  There’s been no plan when he’s been out apart from hoofball, that’s plain to see.  I could live with finishing in a hugely disappointing 6th if there was any indication there’s the making of an actual football team on the park but there isn’t and hasn’t been the majority of the season.  Hiding behind injuries instead of addressing the bigger picture won’t improve us. 

[Agentjambo]

2 minutes ago, dazajmbo said:

Back on topic....

When's McCann being unveiled?

[dazajmbo]

Just now, Agentjambo said:

When's McCann being unveiled?

 

That's not on topic.

[The Treasurer]

2 hours ago, Le Chat said:

Remember the season after we won the cup in 1998?

 

Started pretty well then Colin Cameron got injured.  We then plummeted until we were in real danger with circa 10 games to go.  Cameron then came back and we started playing again, finishing really strong.

 

This season isn't the first time, and it won't be the last time, that injury to a really important part of the team affects it really badly.

 

And we had a much better squad back then, meaning that losing 1 player shouldn't have affected us a badly as it has done this season (with a worse squad).

Excellent comparison.

 

[Agentjambo]

1 minute ago, dazajmbo said:

 

That's not on topic.

Very convenient 

[Finny1981]

1 minute ago, dazajmbo said:

 

That's not on topic.

????

[davemclaren]

19 minutes ago, siegementality said:

Every team has a back up plan. It’s called a squad of players.

 

Our problem is that we have a very, very good player being replaced by a poorer one. When you have a squad that is often the case, however the gulf in quality between Naismith and any replacement is huge.

 

A better quality of squad player should have been the back up plan.

I agree. 

[Sid]

24 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

 

The bit I highlighted in bold. I think Levein has handled Vanacek dreadfully.

 

We knew for months that he was going to be coming to the club and we also knew that their season ended before the Xmas break. It would have made sense for our club to be in touch with Vanacek and provide him with some sort of fitness program prior to him joining us in Spain for the winter training camp. We may have done that and he didn't comply but there was time tio find out.

 

We then have him training for a full week in Spain and remember the players wear monitors that tell how hard they are working etc and give read outs showing their fitness levels. So if he was that unfit you would have thought that it would have been noted at the time.

 

He then gets played in his first home match to be taken off in the first half and then subjected to a public slagging by his new coach.

 

Now it could well be that Vanacek is culpable in all of this but I hardly think that Levein has shown any man managemnt skills by treating his signing in this manner.

 

He may well have knocked every ounce of confidence out of the player making him reluctant to prodce the goods for Levein.

 

Some players need a good kick up the backside but some need a different approach and a good coach will know which to adopt but in my humble opinion CL chose the wrong one. It is just my opinion of course just like yours.

 

I agree that Levein may be responsible for mis-management of the player which has meant we haven’t got him back on track. It may be player or combination. We may find out a bit more if leaves in the Summer. 

Either way, a difficult challenge on top of everything else and not sure what signs may have earned him of how unprofessional he was between last game and joining Hearts. 

[Rudolf]

20 minutes ago, siegementality said:

Every team has a back up plan. It’s called a squad of players.

 

Our problem is that we have a very, very good player being replaced by a poorer one. When you have a squad that is often the case, however the gulf in quality between Naismith and any replacement is huge.

 

A better quality of squad player should have been the back up plan.

Agree with this and maybe next season with a likely bigger budget (no £1M pitch and at least another £1M or so from the cup runs) we'll be able to afford a better quality of squad player as well as first choice?

[Kiwidoug]

I've forgotten what the topic is but our season is simple to digest.  We started very well then suffered a horrendous injury list to our top players.  We didnt have a strong enough squad and I certainly dont blame Levein for that.

 

Vanacek has proven so far to be a total flop.  I dont blame Levein for that either.  Where I am critical is that he hasn't got the best out of his squad the way Locke did.  Tepid performances again and again.

 

I really hope he will leave at the end of the month but I'm certain he won't.

 

That being the case I'll continue to be the eternal optimist and hope he improves the squad in the summer and we are competitive again.

[jambocub]

13 minutes ago, Kiwidoug said:

I've forgotten what the topic is but our season is simple to digest.  We started very well then suffered a horrendous injury list to our top players.  We didnt have a strong enough squad and I certainly dont blame Levein for that.

 

Vanacek has proven so far to be a total flop.  I dont blame Levein for that either.  Where I am critical is that he hasn't got the best out of his squad the way Locke did.  Tepid performances again and again.

 

I really hope he will leave at the end of the month but I'm certain he won't.

 

That being the case I'll continue to be the eternal optimist and hope he improves the squad in the summer and we are competitive again.

Who would you blame for vanacek flopping so far? Surely the manager/dof has to shoulder a fair bit responsibility for this one

[tokyowalnut]

Back on topic, what happened to this being announced last week? It sounds from Levein'x comments that he is looking to next season and not risking his injury, so I'd assume the deal is all but done. An announcement pre final would be good for fan moral though! 

[OTT]

Kinda think Naismith will still make the bench. 

[Sid]

5 hours ago, Inch Hearts said:

 

How did the club get stiched up with Lafferty leaving?  It was obvious he was going from the end of last season.  Vanacek Levein gambled and decided not to pay the fee required to get him in the summer.  That’s his fault. 

 

Uche Has been available the majority of the season and is contributing to the brutal peformances over the whole.  

 

Mitchell’s loan was a disaster this season, he didn’t even get replaced at all either.

 

Berra and Souttar shouldn’t be instrumental in terms of the style of football we play - the actual fact they are tells it’s own story.

 

The midfield creativity unfortunately is the managers fault, he brings the players in to the club and clearly doesn’t trust anyone else to play anything other than pass and punt.

 

I meant one or two similar types of players to Naismith or anyone who can put their foot on the ball and play football - Scott Allan was available for next season for instance. 

 

Why would I hate Levein? For what reason at all? It makes no sense and it doesn’t make it more meaningful saying it over and over.  The football has been torrid the majority of the season without Naismith.  There’s been no plan when he’s been out apart from hoofball, that’s plain to see.  I could live with finishing in a hugely disappointing 6th if there was any indication there’s the making of an actual football team on the park but there isn’t and hasn’t been the majority of the season.  Hiding behind injuries instead of addressing the bigger picture won’t improve us. 

 

So now you are saying Levein should have paid more money to sign Vanecek early. It’s his fault he didn’t. But if he did and he turned out as bad as he has been who would be to blame then!  

We’ve taken a calculated risk - player regularly scoring in similar level of league. Got him for free. It hasn’t worked out and you are saying we should have paid an inflated transfer fee for same result. Hindsight again. 

 

We need the new manager to have hindsight.  

[OTT]

26 minutes ago, Sid said:

 

So now you are saying Levein should have paid more money to sign Vanecek early. It’s his fault he didn’t. But if he did and he turned out as bad as he has been who would be to blame then!  

We’ve taken a calculated risk - player regularly scoring in similar level of league. Got him for free. It hasn’t worked out and you are saying we should have paid an inflated transfer fee for same result. Hindsight again. 

 

We need the new manager to have hindsight.  

 

The Czech club wanted far more than he was worth. Can't blame Levein for wanting to wait. What I can and will blame Levein for is failing to secure another Striker. Neither Maclean or Wighton are anything close to Uche. Every Levein team has an 'Uche'. To not have back up was a needlessly ****ing stupid risk to take. I hate to say it, but Sammon as back up might have just about got us through  (In terms of having a striker where the ball will stick). He's shite but thats an indictment of our team atm. 

[JamboAl]

8 hours ago, wavydavy said:

 

The bit I highlighted in bold. I think Levein has handled Vanacek dreadfully.

 

We knew for months that he was going to be coming to the club and we also knew that their season ended before the Xmas break. It would have made sense for our club to be in touch with Vanacek and provide him with some sort of fitness program prior to him joining us in Spain for the winter training camp. We may have done that and he didn't comply but there was time tio find out.

 

We then have him training for a full week in Spain and remember the players wear monitors that tell how hard they are working etc and give read outs showing their fitness levels. So if he was that unfit you would have thought that it would have been noted at the time.

 

He then gets played in his first home match to be taken off in the first half and then subjected to a public slagging by his new coach.

 

Now it could well be that Vanacek is culpable in all of this but I hardly think that Levein has shown any man managemnt skills by treating his signing in this manner.

 

He may well have knocked every ounce of confidence out of the player making him reluctant to prodce the goods for Levein.

 

Some players need a good kick up the backside but some need a different approach and a good coach will know which to adopt but in my humble opinion CL chose the wrong one. It is just my opinion of course just like yours.

5

Are you saying you don't know the facts but you'll have a negative guess anyway?

[Darren]

4 hours ago, Kiwidoug said:

Where I am critical is that he hasn't got the best out of his squad the way Locke did. 

 

[Kiwidoug]

39 minutes ago, Darren said:

 

Perhaps you've forgotten the circumstances of Gary Locke's reign.  I won't bother going through it it by in my opinion not only did his side relegate Hibs but competed against unimaginable odds.

 

Imo he did superbly in these circumstances.

[Darren]

7 minutes ago, Kiwidoug said:

Perhaps you've forgotten the circumstances of Gary Locke's reign.  I won't bother going through it it by in my opinion not only did his side relegate Hibs but competed against unimaginable odds.

 

Imo he did superbly in these circumstances.

 

He faced difficult circumstances, certainly, but he did not get the best out of that squad by a long stretch. He did not relegate Hibs. He did not do "superbly". He did oversee the absolute embarrassment of a semi-final against ICT. It was largely awful.

[Kiwidoug]

2 hours ago, Darren said:

 

He faced difficult circumstances, certainly, but he did not get the best out of that squad by a long stretch. He did not relegate Hibs. He did not do "superbly". He did oversee the absolute embarrassment of a semi-final against ICT. It was largely awful.

We will have to agree to disagree.  Didn't we defeat Hibs 3 times though?  If so, we certainly played a major role in their demise, aided and abetted by Hamilton and Cumdog of course.

 

Happy days.

[Absolute Scenes]

16 hours ago, Robbo-Jambo said:

They are not over at all

Really hope so!

 

 Evening news is a rotten hobo toilet rag, desperate to put us down

[We_are_the_Hearts]

15 hours ago, dazajmbo said:

 

That's not on topic.

SO is he signing and will he be fit?

[Skacelsid]

It is difficult to justify that we are building or making progress when our season is derailed by injury to one player and that player is not even a Hearts player. Ideally loan players such as Naismith would be enhancing a decent team/squad, we do not look to be near that situation. I expect CL to move back upstairs and not walk. But changes need to be made to coaching, playing style, fitness and recruitment, and all aspects need to be examined by someone fresh. We do not get the best out of our players. It would not be a surprise if Naismith was part of that restructure. (Has he any coaching qualifications ?) I do not think he has any future at a premiership Norwich though he is on very good money, but a settlement could be reached, With his injury issues I do not see him being in great demand elsewhere, he is a football man and coaching will appeal to him. If we are to be relying on SN's fitness next season we will fail. I would not mind McCann and Naismith combination in the dugout, but that would not suit all.

[The Treasurer]

9 hours ago, OTT said:

 

The Czech club wanted far more than he was worth. Can't blame Levein for wanting to wait. What I can and will blame Levein for is failing to secure another Striker. Neither Maclean or Wighton are anything close to Uche. Every Levein team has an 'Uche'. To not have back up was a needlessly ****ing stupid risk to take. I hate to say it, but Sammon as back up might have just about got us through  (In terms of having a striker where the ball will stick). He's shite but thats an indictment of our team atm. 

We lost both Uche and Naismith AFTER the transfer window closed.

How could Levein (or anyone else) know that we'd lose both our main strikers for lengthy spells at the same time ?

Maclean & Wighton were, rightly, seen as more than adequate back-up for either player for one or two games in the 4 months until Vanacek joined us in January.

[TexasAndy]

19 hours ago, Inch Hearts said:

 

Fair enough.  The way peformances have went since he’s been injured certainly indicate the plan without him was to revert to type of trying not to lose games and bypass the midfield completely.  Certainly for me it seems that way anyway. 

Yep I totally agree that we have been badly lacking ideas on how to cope with his absence.  I think it's a combination of bad planning and a lack of quality replacements.  

[OTT]

10 hours ago, The Treasurer said:

We lost both Uche and Naismith AFTER the transfer window closed.

How could Levein (or anyone else) know that we'd lose both our main strikers for lengthy spells at the same time ?

Maclean & Wighton were, rightly, seen as more than adequate back-up for either player for one or two games in the 4 months until Vanacek joined us in January.

 

Its basic planning. Levein has managed for how long? He knows the style of football he plays requires a target man. What did our strike force look like? Uche (Target Man), Maclean (Not a target man), Wighton (Not a target man), Naismith (Not a target man).

 

I absolutely refuse to accept that this is an excusable mistake. He chanced our season on Uche not getting injured and it backfired spectacularly.

[wavydavy]

23 hours ago, JamboAl said:

Are you saying you don't know the facts but you'll have a negative guess anyway?

 

I am saying what I think.

 

The majority of posts on this or any board are generally the opinions of the posters and very few can say that this is a genuine fact and back it up with hard evidence.

 

For example I thought Mulraney had a decent game on Saturday but others didn't how to you prove who is correct? The answer is you don't because we all have different opinions. I think I am right as do the others but at the end of the day it is just someones opinion.

 

I have posted mine and think that Craig Levein has handled the situation with Vanacek in a manner not befitting of a Coach of our club but I have no proof of that other than what I have read and my interpretation of what has been reported about Vanacek since his arrival at the club.

 

Other than the Coach and the Player involved who else would know for sure what has gone on? I have posted my thoughts on the matter and that is all.

 

You can choose to interpret in any way you wish which I am sure have already done.

 

Edited May 9, 2019 by wavydavy

[JamboAl]

49 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

 

I am saying what I think.

 

The majority of posts on this or any board are generally the opinions of the posters and very few can say that this is a genuine fact and back it up with hard evidence.

 

For example I thought Mulraney had a decent game on Saturday but others didn't how to you prove who is correct? The answer is you don't because we all have different opinions. I think I am right as do the others but at the end of the day it is just someones opinion.

 

I have posted mine and think that Craig Levein has handled the situation with Vanacek in a manner not befitting of a Coach of our club but I have no proof of that other than what I have read and my interpretation of what has been reported about Vanacek since his arrival at the club.

 

Other than the Coach and the Player involved who else would know for sure what has gone on? I have posted my thoughts on the matter and that is all.

 

You can choose to interpret in any way you wish which I am sure have already done.

 

6

I don't know the facts and don't believe all I read so I shall remain neutral on the matter meantime.

[J.T.F.Robertson]

6 hours ago, OTT said:

 

Its basic planning. Levein has managed for how long? He knows the style of football he plays requires a target man. What did our strike force look like? Uche (Target Man), Maclean (Not a target man), Wighton (Not a target man), Naismith (Not a target man).

 

I absolutely refuse to accept that this is an excusable mistake. He chanced our season on Uche not getting injured and it backfired spectacularly.

 

Uche came from Cambridge, ffs. If he figured he was the sole answer then it's even worse than we all (most of us) thought.

 

[The Treasurer]

13 hours ago, OTT said:

 

Its basic planning. Levein has managed for how long? He knows the style of football he plays requires a target man. What did our strike force look like? Uche (Target Man), Maclean (Not a target man), Wighton (Not a target man), Naismith (Not a target man).

 

I absolutely refuse to accept that this is an excusable mistake. He chanced our season on Uche not getting injured and it backfired spectacularly.

Had we lost either Uche OR Naismith we would have coped without too much problem. Losing both for a long spell was something no-one could have predicted and would have been difficult (not to mention expensive) to cover for. Like it or not, we just don't have the resources to have two sets of "first choice" players for every position

[i wish jj was my dad]

14 minutes ago, The Treasurer said:

Had we lost either Uche OR Naismith we would have coped without too much problem. Losing both for a long spell was something no-one could have predicted and would have been difficult (not to mention expensive) to cover for. Like it or not, we just don't have the resources to have two sets of "first choice" players for every position

Spot on. Naismith leads the line better than any other striker in the league IMO so it is nonsense to say we only had a plan A. Naismith's performance at Easter Road demonstrated our plan B. Losing both of them killed us. McLean and Wighton could have been a plan C but it never worked as a pairing. 

[Lambo85]

21 minutes ago, The Treasurer said:

Had we lost either Uche OR Naismith we would have coped without too much problem. Losing both for a long spell was something no-one could have predicted and would have been difficult (not to mention expensive) to cover for. Like it or not, we just don't have the resources to have two sets of "first choice" players for every position

 

Have you forgot about Kyle Lafferty? We sold him to Rangers at the start of the seaon and instead of replacing him with a similar style of player we bought Craig Wighton from Dundee for £200k?!

 

A ridiculous decision and a total waste of the clubs money!

[The Treasurer]

4 minutes ago, Lambo85 said:

 

Have you forgot about Kyle Lafferty? We sold him to Rangers at the start of the seaon and instead of replacing him with a similar style of player we bought Craig Wighton from Dundee for £200k?!

 

A ridiculous decision and a total waste of the clubs money!

Can't have it both ways.

People say we need to have a "plan B" but you wanted us to replace a player with someone of a similar style, although I'm not sure how many proven international goalscorers  were available at that time.

We lost Lafferty, who clearly had "left" the minute sevco came sniffing, but we brought in 3 strikers (Uche, Maclean and Wighton) and tried to bring in Vanacek early.

Not to mention we resigned Naismith and brought in Clare .

 

[Deevers]

5 minutes ago, Lambo85 said:

 

Have you forgot about Kyle Lafferty? We sold him to Rangers at the start of the seaon and instead of replacing him with a similar style of player we bought Craig Wighton from Dundee for £200k?!

 

A ridiculous decision and a total waste of the clubs money!

Levein has always regarded Wighton as a "project".  He seems to see some sort of potential there. Others have as well as he has a few u/21 caps. One of my pals is a Dundee fan and used to rave about him a couple of years ago as being one for the future.  He strikes me as being one of these players who has never moved on from the early promises he had shown. He shows the odd flash of talent but far too little in my opinion to justify what was spent bringing him here.

[jambopilms]

Worries me that the eggs will be going into the Naismith basket again with no back up. Before Naismith signed it was going to be Crawford. Surely both wouldn't have broken the bank so we have a backup player. Obviously not the same quality but a backup all the same.

[Lambo85]

18 minutes ago, The Treasurer said:

Can't have it both ways.

People say we need to have a "plan B" but you wanted us to replace a player with someone of a similar style, although I'm not sure how many proven international goalscorers  were available at that time.

We lost Lafferty, who clearly had "left" the minute sevco came sniffing, but we brought in 3 strikers (Uche, Maclean and Wighton) and tried to bring in Vanacek early.

Not to mention we resigned Naismith and brought in Clare .

 

 

Not suggesting we could have brought in another proven international goalscorer but we could have used the money to bring in someone half decent that was capable of starting games in the first team and not just blown it on some 'project' (Wighton).

MaClean wasnt brought in to start every week but was forced to do that when Uche got injured.

Naismith and Clare arent strikers. They can certainly play as a striker when asked to but their best position is behind the striker and linking with them.

The Vanacek signing just sums the whole thing up though. Utter farce.

Edited May 10, 2019 by Lambo85

[Captain Sausage]

On 09/05/2019 at 04:16, Kiwidoug said:

We will have to agree to disagree.  Didn't we defeat Hibs 3 times though?  If so, we certainly played a major role in their demise, aided and abetted by Hamilton and Cumdog of course.

 

Happy days.

 

Happy days? As in, when we got relegated?

 

I honestly can’t believe some people think Locke’s tenure was anything other than a shambles. We were god awful and played well below the capability of that squad. 

[goldie83]

45 minutes ago, Captain Sausage said:

 

Happy days? As in, when we got relegated?

 

I honestly can’t believe some people think Locke’s tenure was anything other than a shambles. We were god awful and played well below the capability of that squad. 

This. Not to mention that semi against Inverness and the final against St Mirren

[pettigrewsstylist]

So...SN...not signed yet??

[Kiwidoug]

I hope we all get a massive boost next week with the announcement of a 3 year player/coach appointment.  Naismith could be a huge part of our future.

[gashauskis9]

Clearly an issue here.  This was supposed to be a formality about a month ago, but it’s been radio silence for weeks.  

 

Starting to think the US option is winning over.  

[Jambof3tornado]

There is no rush.

 

We may need a good news story after the cup final to help season ticket sales.

[Special Agent Dale Cooper]

Ach I suspect they'll just be waiting until after the cup final when the new managerial dream team is announced (including Naismith as player/coach).*

 

*This is pure conjecture.

 

[MR INCREDIBLE]

On 09/05/2019 at 01:54, Darren said:

 

He faced difficult circumstances, certainly, but he did not get the best out of that squad by a long stretch. He did not relegate Hibs. He did not do "superbly". He did oversee the absolute embarrassment of a semi-final against ICT. It was largely awful.

That semi v ICT was no worse than getting pumped 5-0 by Ferranti Thistle... Sorry Livvie.