Andy_P

If it offers you any reassurance that it's come from an official source take a look at the tweet that's currently at the foot of the abbreviated shoutbox. There you'll see the club's reply to a question on whether the game yesterday would have gone ahead had it been scheduled to take place at Fir Park and a reference to previous heavy rain before games.

Or probably just Castle Water.

Your thoughts and votes please.

I think more than anything it's resources. You can have all the great ideas in the world but if you have neither the manpower or capital to properly implement them then you are never going to make the desired gains. And I think that been a big problem at the club for a number of years. It was something that was talked about being addressed when Les Hutchinson arrived i.e.the upgrading of infrastructure and investment in people so that those facilities and people combined could better generate income going forward. It seemed to me both sensible and desirable to make that investment. People more informed than me will know if that investment has proven to be fruitful in the intervening period or whether there's still scope for further improvements commercially.

Could argue I suppose he got his own back a bit with the Mio signing, seeing as he was in the huff with Jim when Tommy snapped him up.

I thought Grimshaw was a bit less effective than he was against Hearts but that burst up the right wing was just fantastic. Chris Humphrey would have been proud of the way he swept his was past challenge after challenge. What a pity after all of it the final ball wasn't quite there.

I remember it as being Andy Harrow too. When you think about it we ended up a with a few on the fringes of the successful Aberdeen and Dundee Utd teams of that era with mixed results. John Gardiner, Derek Murray, John Reilly, Stevie Cowan, Andy Harrow, Andy Dornan and a fair bit later Ian Angus come to mind. Arguably both sides time had come and gone by the time we started getting hit with the likes of Paul Kinnaird and Joe McLeod mind you.

Skews the percentages no more than the week-in, week-out piss-take votes you get no? At the end of the day who gets most votes wins, even though we've long since stopped keeping scores. The world isn't going to stop turning if come a game at Dingwall or Inverness 'I wasn't there' is selected most often.

Fairly self-explanatory I might have thought but there have been a few shouts of late for something along the lines to distinguish between votes of people who were voting null vote because they weren't there and others who were voting null vote because they believed nobody deserved a MOTM award. No more, no less than that.

Echoing much of what has been said already it was a pleasing result and performance. I was quietly confident beforehand to the extent that I even put on us my coupon which I usually avoid doing at all costs. A great start again getting the goal so early. Perhaps another of the McGhee traits of first time around beginning to through again where we often started with a high pace and tempo. I haven't seen the highlights but at the time from our angle there was almost muted celebrations as we waited for the linesman to stick up his flag, then the ref....then it became it clear that it couldn't have been as offside as it appeared from our view. We allowed Dundee to come back into it a little more whilst generally looking comfortable and still posing the greater threat when we went forward. Bain had a couple of decent stops and a bit more accurate with the pass or the run into space and we could easily have been three or four up at the beak. I felt we dropped off a bit in the second half. That old adage about 2-0 being an awkward lead seem to be borne out as we looked a little tentative in terms of going to kill it off in case we left gaps at the back but in failing to do so we gave Dundee a greater share of the ball. Noting Kmcalpin's view, which was also quite vocally shared by the boy in front of us in the East Stand at the game, I couldn't honestly say I felt a goal was coming from them and I felt we were under no greater threat of conceding then than at any time previously in the game. I could understand McGhee's substitution prior to the goal though. Two goals to the good, on another day Lionel and Johnson bombing down the wings on the break could be, and has been, very productive for us but it never quite happened yesterday and after conceding the change appeared to have backfired a little as we then looked pretty disjointed and were riding our luck a little for the next 10 minutes. But we re-grouped, re-organised and looked reasonably comfortable again thereafter. The Clarkson change looked a real odd one though ofcourse it proved to be wise in the end. It seemed a fresh injection of pace might have been more beneficial at the time but perhaps McGhee thought an old head and the experience he would bring could help see us over the line. Great to get the third before the end to give the result a more true reflection and to find we'd moved further clear of Dundee Utd and up a place in the league. Much of the team continues to pick itself but there's a decision to be made next weekend when it comes to going to Parkhead as regards Ben Hall. I couldn't subscribe to some chat I've read about it being the best debut from a youngster in years but it says much that he came and looked completely at ease and some way from being a guy making his senior debut. Interesting to see if McGhee considers Parkhead a good game to aid his development or a game too soon for him. But good progress and and enjoyable outcome yesterday certainly.

Not discounting the drop in home supports again you have to factor in away crowds also. A city club bringing less than 400 with them today being one example. Despite their stock being as high as its been in years both Aberdeen and Hearts have come to Fir Park with less than 2000 fans when in years gone by they might have had another 1000 at least on top of that. Our primary concern should be to build our own support but the numbers coming to Motherwell has to be taken into account also.

Your thoughts and votes please...

That bit rings a bell too! Sunday Mail or the Record was it? Had he not just extended his contract or knocked back somebody and in the aftermath was slevering away about winning the league with us despite the fact the side he'd assembled now hurtling down the table. And then after that game there was the remark that we should have been around at the front door of Parkhead to thank him. A completely bizarre couple of articles that illustrated perfectly how easy a ride and how little proper analysis of your record is undertaken when you are a pal of the Scottish media.

Did they really carry on with eleven when play properly re-started? I'm sure I would have remembered us and the media making much more of a stooshie if they had, even allowing for the fact Celtic were the beneficiaries. I remember the red card and the eternity it took for the substitution to happen but can't remember them getting away with playing on with 11 men although I could well be wrong. They might have done but in my minds eye they took absolutely ages with the substitution and the sickener was that it was only through the deliberate fannying about they made with the substitution that got them the six minutes of injury time they needed to score.

Dare say I'm in the minority but I'm loving this. Highland League Team A or Highland League Team B. That's the Scottish Cup draw of dreams. Granted it would have been better had it been away but the opposition itself? Brilliant! See even though they beat us I'd take that Albion Rovers draw or a Highland League team any day of the week than Dundee Utd or Aberdeen for about the twelfth time in half a dozen years. In fact it blows league games against the likes of Thistle, St Johnstone and Dundee to name but three right out the water. The Cup competitions have lost a fair bit of their lustre in recent seasons but it's draws like Cove that help retain the excitement for me. I'm really looking forward to it. Especially the replay....

Your thoughts and votes please...

You're right Frazzle. The number of people who are able to make it home and away diminishes each season. More and more pick and choose away games weighing up things like price, date and location of the fixture. Your post reminds me of a couple of conversations I've had in the past with Brazilian about away supports and his instance that the club have to fight much much harder to win the custom of visiting supporters and make Fir Park high on their list of choices for away days. How do you do that? Price in conjunction with communication is a good combination to start with. I sent the club an idea a couple of seasons back when we used to get a weekly email from them previewing the next fixture. Essentially this a bit of news and some stats tagged on to an email where they would try to hawk hospitality, the match programme and merchandise etc. But it wasnt' too bad, kept a regular flow of information from the club. My idea was that you could set something up similar for each away support and ping off two or three emails to away fans in the lead up to the game at Fir Park. You could easily pad it out to make it half decent and relatively interesting. Obviously the key point you want to get across would be the price and any details of ticket sales but you could still advertise hospitality, offer messages over the tannoy and on the scoreboard, punt the programme by letting them know what the features on the away team will be, give travel details and so on before you even got the stats and recollecting previous visits. Essentially though you would be building up a relationship up with that particular fan and if they are of the group where they pick and choose by establishing that relationship you're giving yourself a greater chance of enticing them to Motherwell rather than their money going to say Hamilton or Kilmarnock. Unfortunately the email to try to build interest in our next fixture and our own merch and hospitality seems to have bitten the dust far less been expanded to go out to away supporters!

Time will tell how committed McGhee is to youth development second time around but at the Q&A last Monday he did make mention of him personally taking some U20's sessions so he could better familiarise himself with the players and their abilities.

Complaining about having a squad riddled with bang average and lower than average SPFL Premiership players and then mooting Dougie Imrie as a solution to tackle that that just doesn't tally in my mind.

No

I wasn't there yesterday so can't comment on performance and I'd certainly agree the team selection looked a recipe for disaster the minute but I'd say there's argument that Dingwall was McGhee's first real "costly" mistake if you want to call it that. Celtic was awful yet we only lost 1-0. You can make a case that a bit more ambition might have eeked out a point but better Motherwell teams than this have been cut to ribbons and recorded far worse outcomes than that against them. Most expected we'd lose and we lost, probably by less than anticipated. Aberdeen was an excellent point and could even have been three. The organisation and shape that people were looking for was there for all to see. Definite progress. Kilmarnock for me stole all three but a point would have been viewed as a decent return against a team on a fair bit of form. And that hard-to-beat quality that was again visible. Inverness. The freak re-take of a dodgy penalty and deflected second gave us a hill climb up we found too tough. But performance wise not the worst and certainly better than many over the last 18 months even if the result wasn't ideal. And then yesterday with three of the four most experienced members of the squad absent, succumbing to defeat at a venue where pretty much everyone else has over the last year and a bit. It's early days. He has a limited squad to work with. Has he got things right so far? For me clearly. Has he got things wrong so far? Equally clear that he has. I have no idea whether he'll ultimately come good or not but a month or so I've seen enough to hint at the potential for enough progress to be made over the course of the season to keep us clear.

Your thoughts and votes please...

Perhaps I'm being naïve but I've always been of the belief that if and when fan ownership happens it wouldn't simply be a case that Well Society board members would automatically become the board of Motherwell FC. I have always been of the belief that at that point the most appropriate candidates would be sought for those directors positions. If there is a perception, given how plenty have aired their concerns vocally about the WS board have performed, perhaps it may be worth clarifying what the envisaged make up of a future fan-owned club board might look like. Reflecting upon what was said the other evening, whilst I understand there will still be caution in case the WS are required to step in an pay loans, but if those other criteria with Les are satisfied then the message really should be broadcast as strongly and positively as possible now that the Society is now genuinely positioning itself for ownership and its now all about accruing the funds to help with that. It may be some kind of tag line is required to spread that message and grab attention effectively in communications For I'm not sure message has quite hit home yet. I think back to the final speech of the evening made I think by Brian McCafferty. I'm sure what he hoped to achieve was a kind of rallying call to send everyone away positive but in the end his final words were met with silence.

My perception is that you give them too much credit if you believe it a deliberate ploy not to select emailed questions. I would suspect more a lack of organisation than anything else. I say that because it was noticeable the difference even between the first and second halves of the night where firstly you had Cowan armed with a sheet of paper of emailed questions for McGhee in addition to purposely floating around the room looking for the raised arms that he requested before the Q&A started. In contrast in the latter half we had no host as such announcing the protocols of asking questions or making clear how the floor should interact with the panel. It gradually became more and more of a shout-out rather than hands up approach which left the WS person chasing back and forth across the room at times thrusting the mic under the face of people who by the time he got there had near finished what they were saying, far less having the structure in place for a host to pause to ask an emailed question. Might have been better served convincing Tam to stay on for the second half of the night too.

A mixed bag for me. A decent turnout and a mixture of excellent, awkward and at times cringeworthy listening. McGhee's "half" was very insightful at times. He offered answers and explanations on things like why he has everyone back at corners for example that illustrated the work on shape on individual responsibilities goes to quite a depth. Some interesting thoughts on taking the game forward in Scotland and happy to argue his case and beliefs too against those in the audience who differed which made it a better listen. As for the Well Society bit. Hmmm...what to take from that section of the evening!?!? I'm sure it was no accident that one of the first things referred to were the part-truths, misinterpretations and misunderstandings that had built up on places like SO over time, but then you listen to last night and it's so easy to see why. Has anybody ever heard the WS refer to anything less than 2000 members as being required to part demonstrate, alongside the financial element, that the WS has the backing to take over the club? Yet this would now appear to be no more than a target and something to aspire to. The agreement with Les (along with a few other things of course) it seems that is that "1000 active members" are required. That to me seems like a pretty major change and that's us what? Almost a year down the line, and that's only now being communicated? Whilst one of the panel was able to advise we had 1600 odd members when pressed there was stumbling and fumbling and an eventual admission that there wasn't actually a definition of what 1000 active members actually meant. There was much discussed, that at the time of writing I don't have the time to go into but breaking things right down the main thing I took from the evening was that the WS will very shortly have met the conditions set by Les for them to take the club over for the £1 he got it for once the loans due back to him have been paid by the club. The WS have of course set themselves up to guarantee payment of those loans should the club default on them, but on the basis that everything goes smoothly, the club pay up on time, the WS have satisfied their end of the agreement already. It now remains a case of building up members and building up the contributions to have the "rainy day" fund in place to cover leaner times if and when the WS do get control.