weeyin

I don't know if it was just a natural reaction or if the players are under instruction, but I noticed that apart from a well timed Scott McDonald run, nobody put a foot inside the penalty box when Moult took the spot kick.

Aye, but like he said in his post-match today - last time he felt like he nicked it, today he felt like we deserved it. Which makes it even sweeter.

Celtic TV commentator reckons "Motherwell deserved their win today." Great win - and good 3 points given the other results. Oh, and Fir Park playing surface is holding up better than Celtic's too.

I've got a decent stream on cricfree.tv http://cricfree.tv/watch/live/celtic-vs-motherwell-live-streaming

Maybe the trainer has a new treatment table that needs trying out.

Not a concrete offer, but While there are a few star names dotted around the various teams, the general standard isn't very high. In all the years I have lived here, I haven't been able sit through a full 90 minutes of an MLS game. It just doesn't quite cut it for some reason, and I can happily watch lower division and non-league games.

Seems a strange one given he'll be off to the MLS soon. Of course, if we are getting him for next to nothing, then may be a good move to have that experience around the youngsters.

McGhee seems to have a plan to turn Laing into a midfielder, so not sure he'll be going anywhere. I'd be holding on to Fletcher too. If Moult continues his form, our business plan should be to move him on at the end of the season and bring in someone like Fletcher.

Players and managers want it both ways. They insist on contracts and getting paid when they aren't performing, and want to be able to leave whenever they can when they throw a strop and hand in a transfer request. Maybe we should go the whole hog and not have contracts for player. Just do what most of us have to do and pay them a monthly salary and if they don't perform they get a month's notice and shown the door.

I don't think Bosman's original complaint was wrong - some clubs were abusing the system and refusing to let players leave after their contract expired unless they received an acceptable fee. It was the reaction to his grievance that screwed football. A more equitable solution e.g. fees settled by a tribunal, could have been a good half measure and kept money in the game for smaller clubs. It definitely had a negative effect on club and international squads for a number of years.

It's all about maintaining a performance level for me - how's that for a cliché? However, if we can play reasonably well so that our form is maintained into the Christmas fixtures, this result is (almost) secondary.

Dornan was decent enough to win the Player of the Year in the 83/84 season. Always though he was a decent player and had a good turn of speed.

The way Man U are playing right now they could do worse than get Grimshaw into their first team.

It's a bit like being a shareholder in any business. You own a part of the company and you have rights to vote on different aspects of its running, but it's the CEO and the Board that run the day to day.

The plan is to own the club, but any discussion I have heard around running it has always been that they (or we) expect to have a Board in place of experienced directors that will execute the day to day duties. I can't think of any other way to make it feasible.

I think the team playing shite is the main factor.

I'm hoping guys like Moult appeared on the radar thanks to our new scouting infrastructure, but happy to give Baraclough credit if it was him that identified him. Hit 20 goals, sell him on for a few hundred grand, let Fletcher do the same next season, and our business plan start to take shape. Maybe.

The WS isn't going to be running the football club. Their job right now is to run the society and bring in new members. Regardless, the nominees are all volunteers - if there are any members with football club running experience who want their chance, I'm sure they'd be welcomed. The owners at Bolton might be available soon.

Their CVs were included in the voting email. I don't have it to hand, but someone can probably dig them out.

I received an email from the Society on 16th Nov regarding the elections.

This is why we need a 16 team league. Play each other twice, no split, 4 week winter break optional. The problem, of course, all comes down to potential loss of revenue and TV companies wanting the OF to play each other twice a week.

70% is ridiculously high.

That's where it gets more complicated. Is it better for someone like Thomas to get 15 or 20 lower division first team starts, or better for him to get a dozen sub appearances in our team? I'm not sure.

Agree that some first team competitive football in a lower division is a much better way to develop them than playing 16 and 17 year old opponents.

You'll understand it when, like me, you're old.