westenddon

I presume there'll be the usual "will they, won't they" carry on with all our out of contract players until well into the summer, especially since we apparently want to keep the majority of them. Token Killie fan at work wasn't worried about the prospect of losing Bell since they've got some young Finnish keeper coming through.

Cautious optimism. I don't think we'll really know if we've turned a corner until our first defeat or poor result, and the reaction to it in the subsequent game.

As far as I was aware he said we had 12 players signed up, so to achieve a squad of 18/20 we'd need another 6/8 players signed up - think that includes potentially the likes of Nelson/Grassi, I think it's only the EE and the like who've ever tried to say will be 8 new players coming in. Could be wrong mind. Personally I think having Diamond and Considine fit for at least one game together next season will make a difference, as will the return of Pawlett. Not like new signings, but I guess he'll be looking forward to have every first teamer fit for once. We have one new recruit already with six weeks to go till we start our pre-season games. It's not quite panic stations just yet, and after last summer I guess the cloak and dagger approach is preferable to being too open with the press as he was last summer when we were chasing Hughes and Johnson.

Not with our board it wouldn't. Not disagreeing that a "big name" would help ST sales initally, especially given the season we've had and the scepticism of many towards the management. But then I'd sooner have an unknown yet promising striker with the right attitude that'd score 15 goals than a lazy has-been who'll flatter to deceive and won't muck in. I imagine an announcement that Kerr, McDonald and Mulgrew have had any contract offers withdrawn will result in an immediate rise in renewals.

Good stuff mannie If McGhee was brought in with the remit of bringing through the youth and rebuilding the squad long term, then he's done well on the first target and the jury is obviously still out on the second target, what with it being a long term target and all. If he was brought in with the remit of "make us the finished article by the end of the season at the very latest" then I imagine his tack in the transfer market would've been different, and he probably would deserve the sack if those were his agreed targets.

Yet the most scathing criticism from him so far came the other day when he described his own signing MacLean as playing "rubbish" on Saturday. Don't see much deflecting from the manager, he's taken his share of the blame as far as I can see. Criticism of the players IMO has generally been merited throughout this season rather than being used "purely as an excuse" - if anything until recently I thought McGhee had gone out of his way not to criticise individuals

Thanks for your kind words. You said I said something and I asked you to show where I said it - zat is all No denial on the knickers front, mind. Or inference either.

So within the space of an hour or so, it's gone from "you said it" to "you infered it" Love it up me though. Bumming is me.

Well actually, Jagerdeen said "some of the protestors" wanted us to lose against Caley that day, then accused me personally of wanting us to lose. Then when asked to provide evidence he refused, and got a bit wound up at the very notion. But let's roll with your version anyway. Well no, I claimed you were reading the wrong thing into it to suit what you believed to have been said. You said "you would have looked less of a fool if it had been a success" which, maybe, sort of indicates you didn't think it was a success, which maybe, sort of indicates you thought it failed? Just a thought like. The middle paragraph was an example of another way an Inverness win might have "benefited" me, what with Caley being a better away trip than Falkirk. It doesn't disqualify from the original point, that I at no point said that I wanted us to lose against ICT in order to prove a point and that Jagerdeen was at best mouthing off with nothing to back it up, and at worst peddling lies.

Well usually if somebody constantly mouths off about folk without anything whatsoever to back it up then they get called up on it. Nae my fault if you're not used to that sort of outrageous behaviour on here.

Thought not

Protest done, Jimmy gone - if 200,000 were there and Jimmy was still here then it'd have failed so I'm not massively sure wtf you're on about. I'd rather Caley stayed in the SPL last season than Falkirk, so going by your logic I'd have rather we lost that day and they'd stayed in the SPL. If we're talking "infering" then there's a few folk on here who're far more intent on seeing us lose than that solitary post you're clinging to.

It's far easier for people like this to stay here where they agree with each other, swear a lot and convince themselves that lies and myths are fact. They don't like it up 'em, to coin a phrase.

A case of you reading what you want to read - if you want to take from that that I paid my money that day hoping for us to lose then feel free. The point of the protest was to make the point that we felt Jimmy's time at Aberdeen was up - the point was made that win, lose, or draw the protest would take place. Larger numbers might have reinforced the point, still doesn't mean I wanted us to lose to re-inforce said point.

I said a less favourable result would bump up numbers, not the same thing as wanting us to lose or even that I valued numbers at the protest over a win that day. If we lost that day, numbers had been up - fairly obvious logic there, rather than wanting my team to lose.