I am happily stating the football model we had during that time was a fucken shambles and if we had bought smarter, scouted better and coached better we would have been better off...I did watch the teams that we played, and I'm confident that as good as McKay and McLeod were at that level, they weren't good enough to carry a team of Hegartys, Perry's, Cole's, Crawford's , Hutton's...these players are now playing their peak years at crusaders, darvel juniors, Derry city, ifk mariehamn in finland and Dumbarton. These were our best youth players. I know that the standard of opposition wasn't great but having that lot making up the basis for your best 11 would have seen us stuck down the leagues a lot longer than we were. I'm not in the slightest making a case for Ally's tactics or team but they were more than good enough and effective enough to get us back to back promotions. I guarantee that wouldnt have been the case with a team of our youths at the time.
Anyway going by your reply to me and others it seems that your mind is made up regardless-you're not willing to take others opinions on board so I don't really see the point in asking what others think if you get upset when they don't agree with you?
At the end of the day we almost undoubtedly would have been better off with king etc. at the helm. On the playing side of things I'm not for a minute suggesting that we should have stuck with the blacks/shiels/Kyle's etc. But what we did need were players of a calibre a level above what we were playing, who could not only better our opponents technically but handle the physical side of the lower league hatchet men. I stand by my opinion that we'd have been off our heads ti try escaping the divisions with how poor our youths were at the time.
If a better football structure had been in place and we had made additions, achievable additions like McGinn, Robertson and Shankland we would have been in a lot better place as a football club than going down the route we did.....