Kmcalpin

In short yes. I think the tent will be used for any overspill from their Main Stand - not for us. However loads of free tickets have been given away and additional seats have been allocated for their season ticket holder initiative. In theory the ground will be nearly full but in reality there will be loads of spare seats BUT not for Well fans. You could have a situation whereby there are loads of empty seats in the Main Stand and tent but the Spice of Life Stand is full and some of our fans can't get in. If anyone knows an Accies season ticket holder.....

Recently we've had Tommy Wright saying that he wouldn't risk playing Faddy at Kilmarnock and Alan Johnston saying that Eremenko's injury was caused or, at best worsened, by the artificial pitch there. Also a month or two back Alex Neil at Hamilton said that some of his squad's injuries had been caused by the artificial surface. These surfaces should be outlawed at top level until they're advanced enough not to cause injuries. Almost invariably at clubs the Directors are all in favour of them for financial reasons whilst footballing staff dislike them intensely.

Most support have sections of fans like this. Its always been part and parcel of the game. I don't mind it providing that no OTT foul language or abuse is involved. Banter is, and always has been, part and parcel of the game. As far as Higginbotham is concerned he did upset our support at Firhill; so there is some history there. If you were at Paisley you'll have noticed that O'Brien and Law in particular came in for constant barracking. Dundee United fans are notorious in the game for constant moaning and hassling opposition players. A few years ago at Tannadice I recall Don Goodman almost colliding with an advertising hoarding and then laughing as he did a wee dance in front of the United fans. He was expecting some reciprocal reaction but instead was met with foul mouthed dogs abuse. Our support is no different to any other.

A bit harsh. After his knock O'Brien was thoroughly examined by the team doctor both on and off the park and deemed fit to continue. I'm no medical expert but it was obvious that the player was being checked for concussion.

Partick are having a decent run I wouldn't argue about that. However they are in 9th position for a reason.

Maybe its more what hasn't been said Andy. We know that Kenny Black wasn't happy at the way the selection process was handled and he wanted time to consider his position. As far as I know the statement on the BBC said that he'd be retained until the end of the season; effectively the end of his contract. Nothing was mentioned about a contract extension. Thats about as much as we know. I don't put much store on expressions of support from Ian Baraclough or the players. Thats not to say I don't believe them. However it wouldn't make for good working relationships if the manager or the players said that they wanted someone new to come in as number 2. Behind the scenes dressing room unrest is the last thing we need just now. My own guess is that KB will see out the end of his contract and then move on to be replaced by someone Ian Baraclough knows. This would give IB some 6 months to settle in and get to know Scottish football and his own squad. In the meantime KB would provide him with some continuity and therefore this working knowledge. Time will tell.

They have an initiative for season ticket holders to bring along friends to the game. They "expect" the main stand to be near a sell out.

On reading the latest Well Society statement 2 pieces of text jumped out at me. The first was that John Boyle/Club directors issued a statement cum ultimatum to the Society and secondly "John Boyle sympathised with our position but came to the conclusion that, unless we could quickly provide some optimism that we could raise enough cash, he would have no alternative but to seriously progress talks with another party who were interested in acquiring his shares. This interest has now been widely reported in the press but we could not give any details of it at the time...." Now I realise that those who attend Fir Park regularly comprise a number of groups ranging from fans to those who simply want entertainment on a Saturday afternoon. Some want to see the club survive and prosper at all costs; others would quite like to see it continue but not at all costs others would simply do something else on matchdays. I would now say to all fans, that if you can afford it, you should support the Society. We have to deal with the here and now. Its the only option at this point of helping our club. I do realise of course that some fans genuinely believed the South American buyout was the best way forward and thats as may be. Many fans have already signed up, but the Society needs more to do so. It needs donations as well as memberships but it also needs members to participate and give of their time. To the current Society Board - thanks for getting us this far.

Probably in a minority of one but I've never been overly impressed by Ryan Stevenson. Not the fastest guy around and has a reputation, rightly or wrongly, for a poor work rate. Yes, I hope Steve Hammell is back. If so I'd be tempted to replace Carswell with Reid in the middle as the latter is far more mobile and versatile. If available, I'd like to see Lawson back in midfield. Law is a great shout for right back. However this season its a real lottery trying to pick our team in advance.

I'm all for giving youth a chance but yes you're right, if a tad harsh. This was the surprise selection for me. Still an injury to ZFA didn't help. Make no mistake this was Kenny Black's team with a bit of fine tuning from the boss. Now he can start to form opinions for himself. Over the piece a great result and thats was the important thing today. Our new man has got off to a winning start. We have to be a bit wary of BBC comments on the game as St Mirren tend to be media favourites. Given their luck against us last season I'll take any good fortune that comes our way. We were due it. A win. That is all.

As Superward had said, your questions will be answered further down the line, I'd guess late 2018 at the earliest. Most of them relate to operational detail. Don't forget the Society won't be in a position to do much about these issues until it actually owns the club, by which time some of these matters will have moved on anyway. Once the Society actually owns MFC it will then have a good idea of the club's finances and the future transfer market. If you signed up as a member I'd hope you wouldn't have too much say in the details of running the club. It would totally unworkable. Frequent meetings of members would have to be convened to vote on every significant issue. If the Society opted for an across the board price reduction in ticket prices would you expect a vote to be held on the extent of that reduction? Would you feel disenfranchised if your favoured option was voted down by say 51/49? Members should have the overall say on strategic matters and elect board members. If those board members are out of tune with the membership then they could of course be voted off. The Board members should be left to take care of the running of the club and members shouldn't try to micro manage. Why pay for a dog and then bark yourself? Double funding? Yes that would be the case to a certain extent. However at the moment ordinary fans do not own the club or have a say in its running. Currently shareholders have a limited say on strategic matters. If the community wants to own the club then it has to pay for it.

I'm not sure Iain. Certainly no shares can change hands without the authority of the Directors. In theory they could veto any transaction if they deemed it to be not in the best interests of the club. Anybody can buy shares in MFC - they only have to contact the club. They cost about £10 each the last time I heard and you can buy as few or as many you want - 5, 10, 15, 20 or whatever. There are 2 ways to do it. Firstly arrange to buy issued shares privately from an existing shareholder. In this way the club's owner's shareholding could presumably be reduced if they agreed of course. That wouldn't really benefit the club unless the majority shareholder wanted out. Secondly there are a good number of unissued shares i.e. not currently held by anyone and any sale proceeds would go directly to the club.

The club also has a good number of unissued shares. Could these not be sold off to fans who want their own stake in MFC? An individual supporter could invest anything from £10 to several thousand by this means.

For many thats simply not an option. People have other commitments on a Saturday and may struggle to attend games as it is. Having to meet up at say at 1230/1200/1100 depending on where you stay just isn't feasible.

I've always been a supporter of the Society but don't always agree with individual actions or details but what member does. That said, I always favoured a private "white knight" but the actions of a few, in reality probably more than few like David Murray, Miles Brookson, and Vladimir Romanov made me think again. Not all private owners have been good for their clubs. Right now I fear for Ross County who are clearly being bankrolled by a well meaning and wealthy owner. No doubt there are similar examples south of the border, about which many of you will know better than I, as I don't follow English football.

Not boring me at all Andy. I think the overall substitutions were important in the latter stages, especially as Stuart McCall seems to be saying that Lee Erwin was in some way culpable for the goal that we lost. In the first half and early part of the second, Law was clearly playing out of position on the left to such an extent that those around me were saying that Leitch should have started instead of Law in that position. He looked very uncomfortable. McCall redeemed himself somewhat, albeit late in the day, by switching Law and the clearly unfit Ojamaa. Erwin then came on for Law. Thats when things began to go wrong. Erwin's natural position is as a striker and we assumed wrongly that he'd play alongside the clearly immobile and tired Sutton. Not so. He played in the centre but deeper and that is not his position. Ojamaa then went off and I've no problem with that. However Erwin was then moved to wide left and he simply does not have the pace for that and looked like a fish out of water. In the event he ended up playing left back for spells and having to run up and down our left flank to little effect. When Ojamaa went off we would have been better to bring Leitch on and play Erwin further forward alongside Sutton. In short we seem to have loads of midfield players but of the wrong kind giving the side an unbalanced look and feel to it.

I haven't heard the Stuart McCall interview, but in fairness Lee Erwin was played out of position as you say. He is not and never will be a left midfield player or left back. When he came on his positioning completely baffled us.

A slight improvement on previous games but not much. Still posed no threat going forward and central midfield was woeful and some of the substitutions were a bit baffling (ZFA was injured I agree). Mark O'Brien was a standout and I was impressed. I'm not a Twardzik fan but he had a great game - credit where its due. Also had about 4 efforts on target, although I use the word "efforts" in its loosest sense. Mannus in the Saints goal never broke sweat. Saints just deserved the 3 points although there wasn't much in it. Our central midfield was woeful - it lacked pace and creativity and was too often caught dithering when a quick single pass was required. Again they defended too deeply and allowed Saints to see the whites of Twardzik's eyes. Keith Lasley kept getting caught on the wrong side of his opponent. Lawson was ponderous and anonymous, but in his defence he was nowhere near match fit - Ojamaa likewise was well off the pace. Law was played in the totally wrong position until he switched with Ojamaa in the second 45. I understand why ZFA was taken off but really didn't see why Lee Erwin was brought on to play left midfield or even left back. John Sutton is not suited to the role he is being asked to play and he must be brassed off.. I didn't like St Johnstone's tactics but to their credit they worked, although they rode their luck a bit. By contrast our tactics at times were unfathomable. Its becoming clear that our loss of form isn't solely attributable to the loss of Faddy, Hutchinson and Anier, and our injuries. There's clearly more to it than that. I don't think we can simply shrug our shoulders and rely on hard work and returning injured players to solve the problems.

100% correct. The system we are using this season simply does not suit him. There are 2 choices: you either stick with the same system and replace him with someone better suited to that role or you change the system and retain him. The status quo is not an option.

He's suffering from lack of support and is being asked to play in a role to which he is totally unsuited. Give him the ball in the box at chest height or below and he'll do the rest.

The next stage will be the submission of a planning application at which point anyone is able to make formal comment.

Fair point Haggis. In terms of tactics/players he's a wee bit like Jim Gannon (in a very few respects) in that you can't really fault his tactics on paper its just that he doesn't have the players to carry them out. In other words the players and the tactics don't match. In terms of his signings I'd agree. There doesn't seem to be any overall strategy or plan. For one thing we're badly short of pace, especially in midfield. In today's game you need pace. Lawson & Vigurs are both decent players in the right set up and with the right players. However take them out of that system and they struggle. John Sutton - he's a poacher and a good one at that but he can't play on his own. If you're going to play with one striker then its not John Sutton. A lone striker needs fast midfield support which we don't have. We only seem to have 2 lads over the age of 17/18 who can play left back at the club (and both are injured as luck would have it). Goalkeeping - don't get me started on that. As you say these and other issues indicate that there's no overall plan. I'm sure others can think of more examples.

Fair point about our keepers. Gunnar is technically excellent and shines at training but he does have confidence issues during a game. As far as goals from outside the box are concerned , I've been banging on about this for years. Our central midfield sits too deep and allows attackers running at us all the time and space in the world to pick their spot. Thats where the problem lies initially. It leaves our keeper, whoever he is, terribly exposed. Decent teams defend outside their penalty box and you have to be pretty damn good to get the opportunity to have a crack at their goalie.

I was discussing this very issue with JoeWarktheLegend last week and although we have no concrete evidence we have a hunch that something just isn't right behind the scenes. Too many things just don't add up.