weeyin

He'd still have lose a few skills to be worse than Derek Murray.

From Craigan's comments I think there were only a couple of players with pass marks. I can see why that would be disappointing as, like he mentioned, now would be the prefect time to make a case for a first team spot.

Ironically, one of Accies' advantages is their appalling plastic surface while our billiard table pitch allows good teams to play well against us. Of course, it should be to our advantage too if we start stringing a few passes together.

I'm not sure how it could be regarded as a three-ring circus. They interviewed a few people and selected one. Even if it's true that people withdrew from the process at some stage, that is pretty normal in any recruitment once candidates get to discuss the opportunity. I'm sure I'm not the only person that's had an interview and then decided a particular job wasn't for me. Sometimes because of the company itself, sometimes because of the salary, sometimes because I have a better offer elsewhere. Our club never gives details of the process to the media - quite rightly in my opinion - and for some reason, that leads to a fair chunk of people on here branding us incompetent. Apart from publically announcing the names of every Steelmen Online posters' favourite candidate, I'm not sure what could be done differently to keep everyone happy.

In the 70s and 80s Liverpool did quite well with internal promotions to the manager's job. Bottom line is that any recruitment is a gamble. I doubt even the most optimistic supporters could have predicted the spell of success McCall had during his time. Similarly, Tommy McLean's woeful first few season in charge gave no indication of the success he'd have towards the end of his tenure.

If we had appointed Robinson immediately, people would have complained. If we hadn't spoken to Simo this time, other people would have complained. If we'd appointed Simo, some different people would still have complained. There were people complaining when Alex Neil was suggested - a gaffer who had a 54.5% win ratio with Accies and a 41.7% ratio with Norwich. Bottom line is, we are a miserable bunch, and whoever was appointed and regardless of the process followed, there was guaranteed to a number of unhappy punters. What isn't surprising is there are people already hoping he'll be punted in the summer and the guy hasn't even had one game in charge as manager yet.

Cheers Jay. I meant Board Meetings too - that example was just something that sprang to mind that was fresh in my memory. A chat platform might be the best option for members in a different timezone as we can keep up with it while we're at work!

I agree it's not every season, but if you look a post I made a few weeks ago that lists our position every season since the SPL was created, the position we have finished most often is 8th. The recent run of success has been great, but it's not typical, and even the Board said it led to unrealistic expectations when it came to budgets.

The question is, who would have whelmed them?

All good points - and all arranged under a transfer embargo.

I can't see any appointment being made these days that doesn't polarise support as 50% of them are idiots* I'd prefer a good performance, but it's all about points over the next few weeks, so if that means grinding out a win, that's fine. *that's the 50% that don't agree with me, obviously

I have seen us relegated a couple of times, and seen us avoid it a few times due to league reconstruction, stadium rules etc. Any season where we don't get relegated is a good one. Might not be a great one, but definitely a good one.

Who would you say at Motherwell left with reputation intact? Davie Hay - turned his back on a new contract for a fake job in the US? Tommy McLean - walked away after falling out with the Board over budgets Alex McLeish - oversaw the demise of a good squad Terry Butcher - lied about his "holidays" in Australia then walked out during the season Craig Brown - only talking to Aberdeen as a courtesy Stuart McCall - walked away because he lost the team and ran out of ideas? etc. etc. There isn't a single manager we have had that we couldn't find many faults with. I'll bet, however, there few fans who wouldn't take a couple of seasons from any manager if it meant a Cup victory or Europa League group stages. Anyway, I'm not expecting Hughes to be anywhere near our management vacancy - I'm just amused by people who think, with his track record, he's useless.

I've no particular drum to bang for Hughes, but the guy has got a great record in the Scottish game. Got Falkirk promoted. Kept them in the top flight for 4 years. Got them to a cup final. Hibs. Got them to 4th. Qualified for the Europa League Group stage. ICT. Finished 3rd. Won the cup. He might not be the most polished with the media, but he's had a fair amount of success at our level. And I remember a lot of passing teams under his watch.

He fires in a few home truths when we win too. Old school management style. I approve.

Jumping the gun assumes Mitch wasn't just on the wind up.

Winning at Killie bought us some time. Time to look into the options and more time to assess Robinson. Unless we had someone signed and sealed before McGhee was punted we'd be mad not to use it. Even here, in the land of at-will employment and few protections, we always assume at least 4 weeks to fill a position - longer if it's more senior. I'd say this decision is pretty important.

Nobody knows what the club has been doing - which is how this business should be handled. The level of mince spouted on here every time we are looking for a manager has zero relevance. The only thing you can say is that there are so many names and rumours and stories bandied about, one of them may hit the mark like a blind squirrel with a nut.

So at EOD the ETA on which day's COB is still TBD?

I'd imagine there are many candidates we want. Most of them currently employed, and a number of them who wouldn't want the job right now. Why risk taking on a team in relegation trouble in March when you can, hopefully, take the job in the summer when the fate is decided.

If it is the case, he probably wasn't handed it sooner because they wanted to check out all their options, see who applied, see who was available, see who might be interested in the summer and/or see how he handled the KIllie and Aberdeen games. That's certainly what I would do.

Every suggestion I have had has been turned down on the basis that the meeting room doesn't have good enough internet or phone connectivity. That may well be true, in which case options are limited. If we do have some kind of phone or internet available then we might be in business. There are quite a few internet options available like Slack, Google Hangouts, Skype etc. that are free (or cheap) that allow long distance users the ability to participate. Even audio only would be a step forward. Would probably require investing a decent mic or two for the speakers, but that would definitely help. There are limits on the numbers of people that can join in the free versions of these apps, but with time differences etc. I suspect we won't get too many people calling in for any given meeting. For something more professional, there are many conference call services available that let people dial in - usually a free number - and participate directly. I expect they would be pricier (unless any telecoms sponsors could assist) so I can understand why that may not be an ideal solution. Using Periscope for the last couple of meetings was a big step forward - even though we couldn't actively participate, it made a big difference to be able to watch the proceedings. Even if there was a moderator who could monitor a live skype chat room where we could post questions while watching the Periscope stream, that might be a way forward.

The official answer was that the Society is not expecting to be repaid. That was just an example, though, of the kind of question that can be submitted and asked, but doesn't lend itself well to submission if there isn't a follow-up available.

Unfortunately, submitting questions remotely isn't really helpful as often they are misinterpreted or the answer isn't clear. And without the ability to follow up with a clarification or expansion (from the questioner or the responder), then you often don't really get a satisfactory answer. So, for example, when somebody asked about how the Society funded the club, the response discussed loans that weren't expect to be repaid. While that goes some way to answering the question, it immediately opens up a number of other questions such as: How is reflected on the clubs books as far as income? When we budget to break even, does the budget include the income from non-repayable loans? If we are lending the club money every year with no intention of asking for it back, does that mean we have to be paying money into the Society every year to keep the club afloat? etc. All of this could easily be raised and discussed in person, but impossible if all you get is a question asked on your behalf with no follow-up.

Regarding the speed of the appointment, unless we had a contract signed with a replacement before McGhee was punted, I don't see anything unusual in the time it's taking. If we were looking at anyone who's currently employed, then even speaking to them can take a number of days. If it was by application only, then it easily takes a week to get all the applications submitted. If it was a combination of applications and reaching out to a few people to gauge their interest, then that adds time to the process too. And then there's the small detail that even when people apply, and get to an interview, they don't always want to take the job. Whether or not Robinson gets the gig, the win against Killie took the pressure off a quick hire. I'd rather we get it right than get it fast.