dennyc

Both Clubs should be punished for the on field stuff from their fans. Don't think any right thinking person is saying otherwise. There are also a few other on field behaviours by players that need looking at but likely won't be. And meaningless fines don't work. But how about the off field stuff we saw yesterday? By that I mean the sickening graffiti celebrating that fans died attending a match, the storming of turnstiles/exit doors to allow non ticket holders to enter and the destruction of seats. Plenty of evidence highlighting those things. All down to the same set of fans who we know acted in that exact same manner at Fir Park. Their behaviour should be addressed as a separate issue and severe action taken by the football authorities and police. But just as at Fir Park I suspect any action and condemnation will be minimal. Much easier to focus on the pitch invasions, as per the narrative from Club officials and most media outlets. Tom English comments on the BBC excepted. I thought he painted a true picture of what occurred. We may have our own issues from time to time. But thank god we are far removed from the toxic behaviour we see elsewhere.

For me it is about thinking long term. Had that been the criteria under previous Boards then I doubt we would be having this conversation. And although we would have incurred major expenditure at that time (although much more local and government support would likely have been available), we would not have subsequently wasted millions papering over the cracks. And to what effect? We are now structurally in a worse condition than we were way back then. So if we do stay where we are, what exactly can be done to provide that long term sustainability and negate the ongoing draining of funds maintaining a sub standard Fir Park? The restrictions of being in a residential area, limiting options, is something I don't see changing. Would reconstruction costs be less than actually relocating? Could reconstruction provide additional income streams? Someone highlighted that Falkirk lease their main stand from the Local Authority, whilst owning outright the other Stands. The Local Authority having use of parts of the main stand for their own use at times. That feels pretty innovative to me, and a way of reducing initial expenditure as I assume the LA bore the cost of the construction of that main stand? Could Lanarkshire provide similar support, perhaps with an option for the Club to buy further down the line? Could car park income fund help fund that outlay over time? At least we are now looking at how to move forward and no longer burying our heads in the sand. Well done to the Board for seeking solutions.

What I find hilarious is when Goodwin, O’Neill openly say their player was at fault for giving Officials decisions to make. Often acknowledging that there was foul play by their player, but minor. O’Neill seems upset that VAR had the cheek to point out the Trusty thing was more than the referee had seen on first viewing. Strange how the media did not ask a simple yes/no question of either. Was it a foul?

I was pleasantly surprised. I kind of expected a heartless, concrete ground but not so. Still areas for improvement but a better experience than at other comparable new builds. Finance clearly defines what we could achieve but it will be interesting to learn how much a proper refitting of Fir Park would cost in comparison to a new build. Especially if the Local Authority was able to provide the land at no cost to MFC. Folk living in the area will know far better than me whether there is council land lying vacant which could be utilised. MFC are an asset the Authority should be proud of and willing to support. I do understand that many fans have a sentimental outlook where Fir Park and our history is concerned. I respect that view. But that approach by previous Boards has contributed to the situation we now find ourselves in. And to the increased cost of now finding a sustainable solution.

I went to the Falkirk Dundee Utd game and was impressed with what I saw in the main stand. An excellent view, spacious seats, well under cover and catering facilities that put Fir Park to shame. Think a smaller version of the Hampden set up but still with several kiosks and a Club shop. Easily accessible and no lengthy queues blocking off toilet access. Talking of which, numerous toilets, wide corridors and staircases. So no crushing at full time despite a full house. Hospitality on an upper tier but not infringing on us peasants. Stacks of pre bookable car parking for home and away fans. A good income generator I imagine. Did take a wee while to exit the car park though but nowhere near as frustrating as at Perth. Cannot comment on what the away stand offers fans as I was on holiday when we last played there. As a POD season ticket holder, the set up I saw at Falkirk was far superior to the facilities on offer at Fir Park. Both the POD and Hunter Stands need a massive upgrade and whether that is possible given space limitations and likely disruption I have my doubts. If it can be done, fair enough. Let’s see what the study reveals. Where Falkirk do fall down is in having stands on three sides only which does feel weird. Even worse than Accies in my opinion. Why they have no stand on one side I have no idea. But other than that I would happily move to such a Stadium. As you suggest, the quality of any new facility would have to be up to scratch but done correctly it would be fine. A site where neighbouring housing did not impact the construction of the stands would be a huge leap forward.

If the best option is to re-locate then lots of avenues need to be approached before that final decision can be made. Can a supposedly cash short Local Authority assist in any way? Community Club etc etc with initiatives already in place that improve the lives of locals and lessen the burden on the LA. You would hope the LA would therefore try to find some ways to assist us. Providing the land itself as a start and then ensuring the new ground is reachable by local transport. Could MFC provide modern facilities within the ground to support the LA in their own local initiatives? How about Government ....Scottish and UK....Development Grants? I don't know if Lanarkshire was included in the UK Government's allocation of millions to assist deprived areas. Lottery funding perhaps? A major Company securing naming rights and providing up front funding? There must also be other areas way beyond my understanding. Perhaps the Feasibility Study will have addressed what is available beyond MFC? Clearly none of the above, if available, would cover the full cost. But they might just reduce the Club's commitment to a level that is bearable. My own view is that we should have moved years ago when the Economic climate was much better and LA's were in a far better situation. I still think re-locating is the best solution as we must have already spent millions just keeping Fir Park within safety requirements. Hopefully our now forward thinking Board can come up with a proposal acceptable to all of us.

Who gave him the hug?

From online digging it seems to be quite a common thing in the UK - "Open-ended contracts are commonly referred to as 'permanent,' indefinite,' or 'continuous employment' contracts. However, legally, they are the same, as they indicate that the contract is not fixed term and has no defined endpoint." From what I can find it seems these contracts routinely include a notice period which can be invoked at any time by either employer or employee. The notice period will be whatever period the parties agreed originally. 3 months is fairly common. I guess, if both sides agree, an early release can be negotiated. From our point of view I suppose it would save us having to pay out a year or more's wages were a Manager to be sacked mid contract The downside would be that we would not be due compensation if a Manager worked his notice before leaving, or receive only a small amount in compensation if another team were keen to take him without any delay. Far from being an expert so if anybody knows any better please chip in.

Excellent work guys. Enjoyed that.

My understanding is that taking the top 6 as it stands we will have 2 home (Celtic and Hearts) and 3 away fixtures post split. The team that will be complaining will be Rangers as they will need to have 3 away games to ensure a 19/19 split..... to mirror Celtic and avoid meltdown in the east end of Glasgow.. Given the current top 6 standings Rangers are due 3 post split games at Ibrox which would mean 20/18 split in their favour.. So I gather their fixture at home to Falkirk will be switched. Rangers will then have a 19/19 split and Falkirk 20/18 split.

I think their is some truth in those comments but generally it will come down to whether they are earning enough in the first place to make any potential increase less critical or life changing. I doubt the wages on offer at Motherwell to players and staff provide the financial security that would enable anyone to refuse a huge uplift. Hastie is the classic example. I wonder where he would be financially if he had stayed put? Maybe still at Airdrie having been released by us and needing a second job to make ends meet. As mentioned above, he made the right, safer choice. Like every one on here I hope Askou and our top players and coaches are here next season. But I am realistic enough to understand they will look to move on if/when the right offer comes along. It would only take one poor season for their value....and those job offers... to return to previous levels. Let's enjoy what we have when we have it and pray that any replacements continue the amazing progress that has been seen this season.

I think the referee deserves credit for booking Phillips within 4 minutes of kick off. I think that booking impacted the game massively and sent a strong message to the St Mirren players. Compare that to our earlier visit to Paisley where it was half an hour before the referee decided to take action. Having ignored the usual nasty fouls, late tackles etc for most of the first half.

Average attendance is the official measure and it's fantastic to witness the growth that has been achieved this season. But I suspect excluding the away stand numbers would reveal even more progress. As that would focus on the growth within the home support. For me that is the true tell of the Askou appointment. Comparing the numbers pre split avoids the extra OF home game skewing the numbers from a top 6 finish. Celtic and Rangers can be guaranteed to fill their stand so that is more or less a constant season upon season. However it looked to me as if most of the other visiting teams brought less fans with them this season. In fairness, Falkirk as newbies far outstripped the numbers brought by the team they replaced. Taking Kilmarnock in isolation. From what I can find online, their two visits last season brought in a total of 9312. This season that total climbed to 14163. An increase of just under 5000. But from where I was sitting it looked like this season Killie brought far less fans this season than last. So by that calculation our home support increased by at least 5300 over the two games combined. An average home support showing an increase well in excess of 2500. Happy days. The totals I found online quoted 11209 for Sunday v Rangers. So that suggests to me the figures are accurate and not based on BBC guesswork.

Agree. He was top class.

Here's a whisper then. Dylan Levitt from Hibs. Was mentioned to me earlier today by a Hibs mate who is pretty reliable when it comes to transfer info from Easter Road. Out of contract in the summer and unlikely to get a new deal. Good number of appearances for Utd and then Hibs but injury hindered his game time at Easter Road. Now fit but but with Andrews added to the mix he is very much looking at bench time, if that. If we are interested it could be more about covering anticipated outgoings in the Summer.

Pretty sure he will know how and when to play Pinocchio. Part of the job spec.

So by that token when do we revert to bottom tier only to preserve the overused top tier? And are they currently refreshing the bottom tier?

Occurs to me that only using the upper tier when numbers dictate is all about reducing the likelihood of fans invading the playing area and confronting home fans, players and staff. How much abuse would our keeper receive when retrieving the ball? Also restricts the possibility of objects/pyros being thrown onto the pitch areas and players officials being injured. Makes practical sense to me given that Clubs are expected to take all possible precautions to avert crowd trouble. And quite honestly I don't care a toss if visiting fans find it difficult to create an atmosphere. Think back to that Celtic game where all sorts of mayhem erupted with our players being confronted on the pitch. Did our 'top tier' rule not come into play shortly after that game? I would happily bar the OF from the bottom tier as well but money talks I guess. And anyway, does anybody really believe Motherwell fans visiting any away ground are given a prime location where it can be avoided.

I thought the first yellow card for Lowery was correct and Walsh got it spot on. Unintentional as it may have been Lowery went over the ball and caught our player on the shin. Happy to see a yellow given for tackles like that. The second yellow was just stupidity from the Killie player although some referees would have bottled taking action. The offside I thought was clear enough although not as blatant as I thought at the game. Not quite in line but everyone around me on the POD could not understand why the VAR decision took so long. I thought tv highlights showed Polwarth was clearly offside. Tight maybe but not in doubt. All three talking points I thought resulted in the correct outcome although they did give McCann something to deflect from how ineffective his tactics and players were after the first 20 minutes. He appears to have adopted the Kettlewell teflon approach.

In fairness he then did go on to give an update of sorts. Along the lines of..... 'they are on track with the schedule we set and are a week closer to return'. I guess he was just making a point about being asked the same question about the same players week after week?

I thought it was very clever of Askou. Not only did his comments reassure us fans, they also sent a clear message to the Club Board. Promises made should be promises kept and the time to consider a sale is at season end.

If we were offered £3m for any player that cost us nothing and had only been with us for 6 months I think he would be gone. Hopefully with a decent sell on clause as an addition. Especially one as raw and relatively unproven as Maswanhise. Askou was recruited on the basis he would develop players. Young and old. Is that not exactly what he is doing? So we should not be surprised or disappointed at others showing an interest. Securing players on longish term contracts and selling them on our terms is the gameplan. If an offer is not considered good value then it will be rejected. Watt still being with us and not on his way to Poland as an example if what I was told is true. As for Halliday. He said he hoped Maswanhise would not be on his way and also that he considered £3m as the minimum we should expect. Nothing wrong with that. He did not say we should accept £3m from Rangers or any other club. Personally I think setting a minimum figure did us a favour as it will frighten off clubs seeking to rob us (Celtic). SODs follow up today merely emphasised we will not give our contracted players away at a bargain price. But we will listen to offers. We have to sadly. Given our model and our on field success so far, the interest being shown in our players is confirmation of the progress we have made. It's a good thing. I trust our Board to manage any departures so as not to disrupt that progress to any great extent. I also trust our Manager to continue to identify and develop players to fill the gaps which will inevitably need to be filled. I sincerely hope the likes of Maswanhise, Watt, Just, Fadinger and others are still with us until season end at least. But I am realistic enough to realise that may not be the case. I just hope Askou is given the funding to bring in suitable replacements. He has earned that right and I am sure he will already have identified a few players just in case the inevitable happens sooner than later. Just consider the mess we were in only a year or so ago under Kettlewell. This conversation way back then was inconceivable.

Fair comment. But for me another quality CB gives us scope for SODs McGinn and McGhee to cover injuries and rotation elsewhere. Once this window slams shut we need the squad depth to cover all eventualities. Doubts already exist as to when Watt will return and I believe Ross picked up an injury on Saturday. We are just not going to go injury free during the second half of the season. I agree other positions require more urgent attention but I am greedy.

Agree 100%. I would prefer both solutions. Welsh and another CB asap that Askou feels fits our style. Rangers fans seem to think discussions have taken place regards Nsiala. I hope not as it would be another loan and from what little I have seen he is also a bomb scare.

How about playing him tonight just to make sure he cannot play for us in the cup if he returns? That was also a suggestion. Or the Board recalling him to spite O'Neill ....or was it the other way round? Or did the Board recall him to spite the fans? I've lost track.