Kmcalpin

Not something I'd have done but the original poster is quite entitled to have done so. I can understand his/her reason for doing so.

Probably a toss up between Bobby Russell's 5 goals against Falkirk in 1962 or Bobby Campbell's 5 goals at Love Street against St Mirren in 1966.

Of course, a degree of negativity is warranted and perfectly understandable although I don't agree with all of your individual points but thats a matter for another place and time. A secondary issue however. My point was that Frazzie criticised Prideoflanarkshire & Weeyin for firstly starting a thread and secondly posting on the issue of "happy clappy" fans which as I understand it implied that there was an over-representation of negativity on the site. He / she then went on to say that there was also an overemphasis on self gratification and self promotion. There is some yes, but not that much. There are other more common and more important posting trends which they could have highlighted instead - trolling (not in the way that some posters think) and cyberbullying. In my view reasonable and informed discussion is to be welcomed and encouraged. Anything should be up for discussion but personal abuse should not be tolerated. Personally I enjoy reading views which are different to my own as it makes me think. Sometimes I'm right and sometimes I'm wrong but hey thats life. I'd like to see the site win back the many posters who have left or been driven out or indeed the many lurkers. Apologies for going a bit off topic.

This forum is also full of negativity; awash with it in fact. If you don't agree with a topic or thread being raised then just ignore it as others may wish to contribute. Not every member has to contribute to every thread. Live and let live.

I raised it Andy as it seemed to me to be a question that had been left unanswered from months ago. At the time he left there was a great debate on here about whether it was a crime to let him go or whether he'd simply had his day. I think its interesting to discuss, to a limited extent ie not going on and on indefinitely how such players have fared, not out of continuing interest in a former player per se but to reflect in hindsight was our decision right or not.

I still have nightmares Big Weegie about the 2005 Scottish League Cup Final when the former Rangers kept pumping high balls over Stevie's head and caught us out time and again.

Oh yes, I don't disagree that he's probably the best we have, although I've never been his greatest fan. I think Chalmers' biggest weakness is his lack of pace and that won't change. Jim Paterson for all his faults was very fast - one of the fastest players on our books at that time although many fans didn't realise that. Depending on how Luke Watt progresses we could be looking at bringing in one or possibly two new full backs next season.

Are we going to see much more of Stevie Hammell? In terms of his injury record, this season is fast turning into the same as the last one and he's a year older.

Interestingly John Sutton is not getting a regular game for St Johnstone; a few appearances from the bench, thats all. Not the massive loss that some of us predicted. .

Speaking amongst our group and to those around us in the POD Stand yesterday none were upset by his appointment. As a few others said, the other known names in the frame did not inspire confidence. One respected member of our group indeed remarked that through conversing with McGhee, his knowledge of football is second to none, as opposed to others who just sound impressive.

In terms of the result and scoreline I don't know that we could have achieved much more. The performance was something else. The line up was a bit surprising especially playing Moult wide left - I thought that experiment was a dismal failure at Dundee and therefore unlikely in the extreme to be repeated. At least Mark McGhee has shown that he has the balls to drop any player he thinks warrants it for whatever reason. The formation was set out with damage limitation in mind. A bit puzzled by Louis Laing in midfield even moreso by Mark McGhee's post match comment along the lines of "We were unexpectedly forced to play Louis Laing in midfield" - does anyone know what was behind that remark? Our off the ball play was very poor and Celtic certainly gave us a lesson there. They got in our faces and closed us down and were physically able to bully us. It was a bit of an eye opener pre match to see several Celtic players tower over Kieran Kennedy. Our play in possession was equally as poor as we gave the ball away too easily. All that said Celtic could only muster 2/3 shots on target (we could muster none). As others have said we sat far too deep and, despite having so many defenders, too narrowly. Fletcher received little or no support and all too often we had no outball for the under pressure defence. We just don't seem to be able to play with a single striker up front. Both full backs were poor with Chalmers being slightly the better of the two but he badly lacks pace. In the middle I thought I thought Kennedy was an absolute standout. The midfield was posted missing for most of the match. Grimshaw had a quiet but just passable game; Pearson went missing after a promising start; Laing was like a fish out of water, although he had a slightly better second half; Moult - don't know what on earth he supposed to be doing; Johnson had a poor game although he received utterly abysmal service it has to be said. He was receiving the ball behind him and when covered by 2/3/4 defenders . Up front Fletcher had a thankless task against physically much bigger and more powerful opponents and with no support - looks more of a poacher to me. A bit of predictable outrage at Keith Lasley's omission. Well this is now mid October and he won't be in the first team next season. I had assumed, from Ian Baraclough's comments that Grimshaw was being signed as a short term replacement for him. The central midfield has gone missing all too often with him in it and it went missing when he wasn't in it. So the change was neither here nor there in my eyes. That said maybe facing the best midfield in Scotland over 90 minutes isn't the best time to judge such a change. Mark McGhee does like a physically powerful midfield, rightly in my view, so future line ups will be interesting. Well, now that he's had 2 days training with the squad and seen them in action against Celtic it'll be interesting as he starts to form his own opinions of players and implements his own ideas as opposed to letting his assistant call the shots.

Thought the pitch looked outstanding yesterday. Early days though.

Too many to mention but apart from the 1991 Cup Final its probably the 1976 Scottish Cup replay against Hibs at Ibrox which we won 2-1. The game should never have been played and Tom Hart got his just desserts.

Members and indeed non members seem to have numerous, as yet unanswered, questions about the Society. I assume that there's provision within the rules to call an EGM at which members can ask questions of the committee. Failing that questions can be asked at the AGM.

This. Craigan will almost certainly pick the team and perhaps set the tactics. As the game unfolds McGhee will start to see and assess individual players and gameplan and perhaps start to suggest some adjustments.

Optimism

Won't disagree with that Allan. He's here to do a job and if he does it well then fine. Our main task this season is to finish above 11th position in the league and, if possible have a decent cup run.

Good points. Presumably we'll lose fans as a result of Mark McGhee's appointment but don't forget we'll have fans returning as some indicated they would no longer attend until such time as Ian Baraclough left - he's now departed. We also had fans returning once john Boyle departed. No doubt some will not return until Les Hutchison leaves the scene. Our fan base is constantly shifting and changing although a consistent core tends to remain.

Very much so. How many of us if we were starting a job in say Sussex would start immediately? He'll have been away from his family as you say and he'll no doubt need to make domestic & business arrangements. Nothing wrong or unreasonable in that. As for the players having a day off. Perhaps they've been training as normal during the international break. There may also be something in their contracts about their hours.

If we're true Well fans then we stick by the club through thick and through thin. Managers, players, owners, pitches, strategies all come and go but the fans should remain end of. Throughout my 55 years of supporting the Well a lot has happened that I didn't like and perhaps you voice your disquiet but in the end you accept that and move on to the next game.

As far as I'm concerned he starts as any new man would with a clean slate. In our current situation results are more important than performances. That said, I'd like to see us play open expansive football but that might not be possible - many of Tommy MacLean's teams never achieved that. If Mark McGhee does well he'll win over some of the doubters and haters but by no means all. That simply won't happen.

Overall I'm pleased with this appointment. In our current situation we need an experienced man with a knowledge of Scottish football at the helm and MM fits the bill. For those who like a combative aggressive midfield then MM is your man based on previous comments during his first stint with us. His appointment won't please everyone but going by the site's poll so far just over three quarters of our fans are satisfied with it.

When it comes to the crunch I tend to believe a senior club official who was directly involved rather than reports published in red tops based on comments from agents. But, you pays your money and you takes your choice.

Welldaft Mk1 was probably at the same meeting I was at in Edinburgh. Nothing wrong in moving for a higher offer - it depends on how you do it. Comments in the press at the time were misleading and led to mass outrage amongst our fans. The version that I heard from a former club official was somewhat different, in fact very different.

Absolutely. In contrast to Mark McGhee, and as I've written before, Simo Valakari did not leave the club in the best of circumstances.