David

I’ve never paid much attention to him before, but looking at his recent stats, am I overlooking something? He played 37 matches last season, 36 the season prior, and 41 the season before that. Is he typically seen as an injury risk?

No worries, it happens to us all at some point, the discussions are so back & forth it's easy to do. While I wouldn’t describe it as "severe," I do believe the issue of ownership plays a role. I’m as much of a supporter of our fan ownership model as anyone—of course, I am—but it does impact our ability to compete with clubs that are backed by wealthy owners or majority shareholders. That’s simply the reality of the situation. I’m not complaining about it, particularly since, in the main, we’ve outperformed those clubs where it truly counts—on the pitch. As we’ve seen, spending more on players doesn’t necessarily guarantee success. However, it’s undeniable that if a club has greater financial resources and uses them wisely, it’s more likely to achieve better results than those with less funds at their disposal. That said, our recent track record shows we’re actually doing quite well against the clubs around us, for the most part. Do bear in mind that having higher staffing costs doesn’t automatically mean we’re paying, or even in a position to pay, more in player wages or transfer fees compared to the other clubs you’ve mentioned. On the deficits you’ve pointed out, it’s worth highlighting the role ownership plays in that. For instance, a club like Kilmarnock benefits from Billy Bowie, who has the ability to dip into his own resources to cover such shortfalls. We, on the other hand, don’t have that luxury, which is precisely why we need to be cautious about overextending ourselves on player salaries. It’s vital to ensure we avoid putting the club at risk of financial difficulties. There’s a distinction to be made between an unforeseen, urgent expense and choosing to commit to a cost for a player when it isn’t a necessity, isn’t there? And while it’s true that the Society has funds in reserve, I’m not entirely convinced the board would have been willing to allocate as much as £140,000 of members’ contributions to fund the wages of a player we'd only have at the club on loan. I’m not entirely sure about the situation with Hibs and Hearts, to be honest. However, when it comes to us and other clubs in a similar position, I believe it largely comes down to the financial support that owners or majority shareholders at those clubs can offer. They often have that safety net to fall back on if needed, whereas we simply don’t have that luxury. In a way, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. We’re forced to operate within our means, which is how it should be. Clubs that spend beyond their income tend to end up in serious trouble sooner or later—unless, of course, there’s someone willing to absorb the debts.

Did you see where I said the following? So we are competing. And more often than not, we're bettering them.

It goes without saying that the club would love nothing more than to dive into the transfer market and secure a top-quality left wing-back with similar attributes to Kaleta on the opposite side, for instance, as well as a striker in the mould of Moult or Van Veen. If such players were available, affordable, and interested in joining Motherwell, there’s no doubt we’d pursue them, just as we have done successfully in the past. However, the reality is that the market largely dictates our options. We operate within a specific bracket of the transfer market during both the summer and January windows, where our focus is on identifying players who meet our criteria, fit within our wage structure, and, most critically, are willing to make the move to Motherwell. This typically means they have a personal reason for relocating to this part of Scotland, they’re coming on loan with their parent club viewing the move as beneficial to their development, or they don’t have stronger offers from elsewhere. The challenge arises when these opportunities aren’t materialising during a particular window. What then? While we’ve managed to recruit quality players in the past, it often requires everything falling perfectly into place to make it happen. The reality is, not only are we holding our own against teams that often have the means to spend more on players, but we’re actually outperforming them more often than not. In the past five seasons, Kilmarnock have only finished above us in the league once. St Mirren have managed it twice, St Johnstone once, and Ross County haven’t done so at all. And this season so far? Not a single one of those teams is ahead of us in the table. Transfer fees often involve structured payment plans, with specific milestones triggering additional payments. In many cases, these fees are spread over several years. The expectation is usually that the investment will yield returns, whether through the player’s on-field contributions or future sell-on potential – especially when signing a 25-year-old with resale value. Wages, however, are a completely different matter. For a start, bringing in a player on a significantly higher salary than anyone else at the club can create tension within the squad. It also establishes a benchmark that complicates future contract negotiations. As for your point about Van Veen, you suggest we could have matched his wage demands. Surely, by that logic, Kilmarnock could have done the same, couldn’t they? If so, why did a director have to personally contribute from his own funds? Do the reported staff costs include all club employees or just the playing staff? I wonder if they also account for payments made to the various managers we've had in the year or so leading up to those accounts, along with their coaching teams and associated costs. As with most things, it’s not a straightforward matter. What’s frustrating is that if many of our supporters had their way, we’d constantly be paying out to replace managers and coaching staff, which would only serve to keep our staff expenses consistently high.

😂

So you’ve posted in the thread titled "Are Motherwell Entertaining?" only to propose that we abandon the discussion and focus instead on Saturday’s match—which already has its own thread? The whole point of having multiple threads is to allow for different discussions to take place 😆

What I’ve said doesn’t specifically relate to Kettlewell; it could just as easily apply to any manager we’ve had who’s found themselves in similar situations. In fact, most of our recent managers have faced the very same challenges. I believe that’s why, no matter who’s at the helm, we often see the same supporters complaining about the same issues and being critical of whoever holds the role.

I didn’t single out those clubs – you did. I simply responded. And, frankly, you’ve completely disregarded my points about the quality of players. How many of our players would walk straight into the Hibs or Hearts squads? And how many of theirs would make it into ours? Yes, those teams may not be performing cohesively at the moment (although Hibs are unbeaten in their last five matches and Hearts have only lost one in the same stretch, so it could be argued they’re starting to find their rhythm). Still, they’re clearly not playing to the standard expected, given the calibre of their squads. That, more than anything, likely comes down to coaching and management. Meanwhile, you could argue that we’re exceeding expectations by comparison, which is also a credit to our coaching and management. When it comes to budget, club stature, and player quality, the top six in Scotland this season should, in most cases, include Rangers, Celtic, Dundee United, Aberdeen, Hearts, and Hibs in some order. As for our current form, some might say we’re on a poor run. I wouldn’t go that far, but I can see why others might feel that way. However, as with most things, context is key. Everyone knew that facing six matches in sixteen days – essentially a game every 3.2 days – would severely test the depth of our squad. We’re simply not the sort of club with the resources to field a squad capable of handling such a gruelling schedule without consequences. On top of that, let’s not forget who we were up against during that period: Celtic away, Rangers at home three days later, Hearts away, Aberdeen at home, Kilmarnock on that dreadful plastic pitch, and Hibs away. And that doesn’t even account for the fact we lost some of our most important players during that time – our best player, our goalkeeper, our new striker, and our captain were all sidelined by injuries. When I look back on that spell, I think taking a point against Rangers, three against Aberdeen, and another point at Kilmarnock is a respectable return. Before that difficult run, we’d had two poor results against Hibs and Dundee, which weren’t good enough. But following that, we took seven points from three games – a win at St Mirren, a victory over Dundee United at home, and a point against Kilmarnock. Now that the intense stretch of fixtures is behind us, we’ve had a week to rest and reset, and we’re ready to go again on Saturday. Could those factors be at play? Possibly. But just as you might argue they could be, I can equally argue they might not. That’s precisely why I prefer to focus on certainties whenever possible. Those factors you mention might have influenced things, but the reality is we face opponents with differing styles, on various pitches, in constantly changing weather conditions. Our own players are at different stages of fitness and coping with varying degrees of fatigue, all while playing a match every 3.2 days on average. There’s no "perhaps" about what I’ve just outlined. Those are indisputable facts, and I’d rather consider them first before speculating about other factors that might have an impact. Of course, it’s fair to look for improvement. However, to demand it without considering the factors I’ve outlined above comes across as a bit unrealistic, in my view. That said, if you believe that a club with our budget – and, as a result, the squad depth and quality that come with it – should be performing at 100% while playing a match every 3.2 days over a period of more than two weeks, all while delivering entertaining football, missing some of our key players, and contending with some rather challenging conditions, then you’re entitled to that opinion. We’ll revisit those figures in a few months, once the weather has improved and the fixture schedule has eased up a bit. This time of year is typically one where many people have less disposable income, so it’s no surprise the numbers might be affected. I’ll gladly take a closer look at the attendance stats down the line. That’s perfectly fair. I don’t see it the same way, of course, and I do consider the various factors involved. However, you’re entirely entitled to disregard them if that’s how you feel. That’s all part of being a supporter. Performance always matters. I’ve never been one to think otherwise because it does. That said, I’d much rather we grind out a scrappy 1-0 win than lose a thrilling match 4-3, as I’ve mentioned before. As for the Hibs game, I saw a team that looked like it had reached the end of a gruelling run of fixtures and was running on fumes. We looked like a side without our usual goalkeeper, who had done well since coming in this season, and instead had to rely on a 23-year-old replacement. This lad had only just arrived at the club the day before and, as far as I can tell, hadn’t played a senior match all season. We looked like a side whose captain, returning from three months out, made his first start only to come off injured after 30 minutes. We looked like a team missing our best player – one of the brightest young midfield talents in the country right now. We looked like a side without our new first-choice striker, who had started to find form before his injury. We looked like a team coming to rely on three young players over the recent busy period – Wilson, Maswanhise, and Kaleta – two of whom are 20, while the other is 22. These kids spent last season playing a mix of under-21 and Scottish League One football, and are now effectively in their first full season of serious senior-level competition. In short, we looked like a team that’s been through the wringer. If you’d asked me to outline a worst-case scenario before we faced Celtic away on Boxing Day, I’d have probably said something like losing Stama and Lennon to injury, losing both our first-choice and back-up keepers for various reasons, and seeing Paul McGinn return from injury only to get sidelined again. If you’d told me we’d have to cope with all of that during a packed schedule, then go on to lose to Celtic, draw with Rangers, lose away to Hearts, beat Aberdeen at home, draw away to Kilmarnock, and lose away to Hibs, I’d have said that sounds about right. Ultimately, though, people will think what they want to think. It’s clear we’re not going to see eye-to-eye on this, so there’s no point endlessly rehashing it. What I’ve outlined here reflects how I view this recent run of games. I’ve tried to focus on the facts rather than speculate or second-guess the manager and coaching staff. They’re in their roles for a reason, while you and I are here as fans, paying to watch them do their job. Let’s see how things unfold over the coming weeks. Hopefully, we’ll see a bit of relief on the injury front and pick up some results along the way. With the squad as it stands, I’m not expecting a winning streak any time soon. It’s going to be tough, but with a bit of luck, we can nick a result in the cup and keep ourselves in the conversation for a top-six finish.

Kettlewell’s approach to setting up the team has, by and large, been effective. When you compare us to the teams you’ve mentioned – all of which operate with larger budgets, two of them being much bigger clubs in major cities – the results speak for themselves. We’ve won two more matches than Hibs and three more than both Kilmarnock and Hearts. Of course, if we were to go on a poor run of form and start slipping down the table, there would naturally be questions to address. However, it’s difficult to criticise the manager for sticking to the tactics and strategies that have placed us in the top six during the first half of the season. It’s also worth bearing in mind that, particularly in the cases of Hearts and Hibs, even though their form has been below par, they still have squads that, on paper, are stronger than ours. In fact, I’d be far more concerned if our manager were to approach games against sides with the quality of players they possess under the assumption that they’re merely "inconsistent shite". Many of the factors I’ve previously mentioned come into play here. If managing at the top level were as straightforward as setting up your team and saying, "Just play the same way we did against Rangers, and we’ll be fine," it would be an incredibly simple job. But the reality is far more complex. Every match presents unique challenges. We face different opponents with varying styles, on different pitches, in changing weather conditions. Add to that the fact that our own players are at different stages of fitness and dealing with varying levels of fatigue, and the situation becomes even more intricate. This isn’t an excuse, by the way—just the plain truth. These are the variables we have to contend with, whether we like it or not. I assume those fans are Motherwell supporters, and as such, they’re fully aware of what they’re paying to watch. It’s no secret. Like the majority of teams in Scottish football, the style of play isn’t exactly easy on the eye, and the quality often suffers due to the conditions we insist on enduring by sticking to the frankly baffling decision to play through the winter months. Put Barcelona or Real Madrid on that Rugby Park pitch in -3°C temperatures during a typical Scottish winter and see how much free-flowing football they manage to produce. In a sense, fans know exactly what they’re signing up for. We’re all well aware of the standard of the product on offer. On the whole, we’re neither more nor less entertaining than most teams that compete at our level. Here’s a question to consider: should producing exciting, entertaining football be part of a manager’s job at a club like ours? I don’t claim to know more than the average fan, but I’d imagine the main measure of success is avoiding relegation first and foremost, aiming for a top-six finish if possible, putting together a decent cup run, and perhaps developing players we can eventually sell on for a profit. Right now, we’re not in the relegation zone, we’re sitting in the top six, we’ve made it to a cup semi-final, and we’ve got a few players in the squad who look like they could grow into assets that bring in some money for the club. So, is that success for the manager? It’s a genuine question. Or is he expected to achieve all of that—likely on one of the smallest budgets in the league—while also delivering football that’s exciting and entertaining to watch? Maybe the real question is about the manager’s actual remit and the KPIs he’s been given. If the targets set by the club are broadly what we think they are, then he’s delivering. And it’s worth remembering that the last time we let go of a manager who was meeting those kinds of expectations but who the fans wanted more from, we ended up in a right mess, with the club spiralling into chaos for a while. Saying that, I do know a few fans of other clubs who found that whole saga quite entertaining, if nothing else!

When it comes to the manager and coaching team, I'm reluctant to second-guess them after the fact. They’re hired for a reason, and their decisions often involve details we might not see from the stands. After all, there's a reason why they're being paid to do the job while we're paying to watch them. You mentioned our recent games against Rangers. Though it was the same opponent, both matches played out differently potentially because of changes in the lineups and formation. Rangers made seven changes, and we made four. Naturally, this influenced how both teams approached the game. Managers make tactical decisions based on a mix of factors such as the team’s strengths, the opposition’s setup, and the specific demands of the match all based on who's available and fit. They balance risks, adjust to changing situations, and try to account for things like pitch conditions, player fatigue, and even weather. Football is unpredictable at the best of times, and no amount of preparation can remove the element of chaos. If even Pep can go through a spell where he looks like a dumpling, it can happen to anyone.

I've talked about this subject before, where it "appears" as though we're happy to sit back and so forth, when in reality, I believe that much of that is to do with the opponent pushing forward. I don't believe for a second that outwith the games against the Old Firm, we go into any match actively not trying to win.

I feel the same way if we lose a turgid game 1-0 or if we lose an exciting and entertaining game 4-3.

Personally, I go to games to see us hopefully win. That's the be-all & end-all for me. If we win a boring game 1-0 I'll be happy. If we lose an exciting game 4-3 I won't be happy.

Let's cut back on the back and forth niggling, please. Want to discuss and be critical of the manager? Fine. But this stupid tit-for-tat isn't happening.

I always laugh when I see anyone saying that, as it's something that fans of about 90% of football clubs in existence say 😂

There will always be better players out there than the ones we’ve got, but the real question is whether we can afford them and if they’re actually interested in joining us or have other options. It also comes down to whether the manager and coaching staff believe there’s potential to improve and address the issues a player might have. Let’s be honest—finding a player who makes virtually no mistakes is extremely rare. If someone was consistently performing at that level, they’d probably be well beyond what we can afford. In the case of someone like Casey, we need to ask ourselves whether he’s consistently making errors and misjudging situations, or if he’s doing what’s expected and delivering at a level suitable for a club like ours. Can the mistakes he’s making be addressed through coaching? Is there room for him to grow and improve?

He clearly lost his temper on the touchline at the weekend and paid the price for it. He’s not the first manager to do so, and he certainly won’t be the last. Personally, I’d rather have a manager who occasionally lets his passion get the better of him than someone who comes across as overly passive. You also raise a valid point about his inexperience. At 40, and with last season being his first full campaign as the sole manager of a professional club, it’s fair to say he’s still learning the ropes. That said, chasing a top-six finish and leading us to a cup semi-final in only his second full season? Not bad going for someone who’s still relatively new to the job.

Not by me he didn't.

I completely understand your perspective, but I’d much prefer having a manager like Kettlewell who refuses to doff his cap and simply accept the status quo. In my view, the more he calls out the shambles that is officiating in action, the better. It’s worth noting that his approach could easily boost morale and foster an "us vs the world" mentality in the dressing room, which is no bad thing. I’m not referring to you here, but the reality is that Kettlewell can’t seem to win in the eyes of some fans. If he manages with passion, wears his heart on his sleeve, and kicks every ball like we do in the stands, he’s labelled a "twat." Yet, if he kept quiet about the poor decisions, avoided making waves, and let it all slide, he’d likely be called a "twat" for that as well. What I hope is that fans recognise a manager and team who are clearly on the same page, putting in the effort and having a decent season. We should be backing them, supporting the manager and club when they call out dodgy decisions, not tearing them down for it.

Yup, the sooner Kettlewell learns that it's only the "big teams" who get to question match officials and learns his place, the better, eh?

The changes Rangers made at half time and in the second half made the difference. As is usually the case with the Old Firm, they can call upon the quality needed when our players are tiring, and the quality we have on the bench simply isn't of an equal level. Losing Stama and Miller also hurt us.

It seems like a fair result overall. We were clearly the better side in the first half, but Rangers' changes at the break, combined with us losing Stama, Miller, and Kaleta, swung the second half in their favour. As for the two VAR incidents, they seemed straightforward to me. You simply can't put your hands on the keeper during a set piece and expect to get away with it. It’s a frustrating rule, but it’s been in place for some time now. The offside decision was correct as well—no real debate there.

That's a bit of a stretch. I know we all love a good manager-bashing on this forum, but I think the three injured players we've had may have been more of a factor in it all.

I can’t dispute that we were cautious at points on Friday (as were Kilmarnock, by the way). However, I’d argue that it’s not as straightforward as a deliberate, one-dimensional plan to sit back after scoring. Momentum is a massive factor in football. When a team concedes, it’s natural for them to respond with urgency—pressing higher and taking more risks. This often pushes the leading team deeper. Players react instinctively to pressure. When the opposition throws everything forward, the priority often shifts to holding shape and defending—more out of necessity than by design. There’s also the psychological and tactical side to consider. Protecting a narrow lead can lead to a subconscious shift towards caution. Players might hesitate to make risky forward passes or push too far forward, not because they’re instructed to but as a natural response to the situation. This is especially true if confidence in the defence isn’t at its peak. Context is also key. Playing with ten men for any length of time inevitably changes the dynamic. Even when we had eleven men on the park, there’s a recovery period—both physically and mentally—where players need to readjust after a period of sustained pressure. The caution you mention may well have been a mix of regaining composure and ensuring we didn’t concede a soft equaliser. I’m not saying we couldn’t have been more proactive or that the tactics were flawless, that's never the case, but I think these situations are rarely as straightforward as they seem. What looks like sitting back might be the result of Kilmarnock’s pressure, the game’s momentum, and the very human instinct to protect what we had. You’ve raised some fair points regarding the flow of the match and the timing of substitutions, but I think there’s a bit more to consider when assessing Kettlewell's decisions. Firstly, while the momentum did shift in the second half, making an early substitution isn’t always the answer. The manager has to take multiple factors into account. Which players to take off, how a substitution might alter the team’s shape, and whether the change will genuinely address the tactical problem. Bringing Maswanhise on later in the game clearly paid off, but there’s no certainty that the same impact would have been achieved earlier. Substitutions are rarely a magic fix, and their timing involves balancing immediate needs with the broader game plan. Secondly, sitting deeper isn’t always a deliberate tactic but often a response to the opposition’s increased pressure, as I mentioned above. If Kettlewell instructed the team to push higher or play out more (which he was, by the way. He could be seen and heard from the main stand urging players to push out), and they struggled under that pressure, it’s less about managerial hesitation and more about the natural ebb and flow of the game. Momentum shifts aren’t always within a manager’s control, especially when the opposition steps up their intensity. It’s also worth considering how finely balanced the match was. With a narrow lead, making changes too early carries risks, as they might leave the team more exposed. While an earlier substitution could have disrupted Killie’s rhythm, it also might have left us vulnerable, particularly as we went down to 10 men later on. Finally, I think Kettlewell has demonstrated his ability to make impactful in-game adjustments, as shown by Maswanhise’s introduction. It’s easy to look back and argue a substitution should have come sooner, but in the moment, the manager's job is to assess the bigger picture: how the team is coping, the risks involved, and whether the players on the pitch can resolve the situation themselves. That’s not hesitation—it’s a measured, calculated approach in my view. We’re in a strong position in the league, and while the manager's decisions may not always be perfect, they’ve played a significant role in getting us there. Momentum shifts and spells of sitting deep are part of the game, and they happen to every team in almost every match. I do think it's easy for us to sit here online and talk about what should have been done after the game is over, but maybe not quite as easy to do when you're the man in charge mid-game and the result is still there for the taking.

It’s all relative, isn’t it? I’d see your point if we were Celtic, consistently facing teams clearly below our level. But we’re not. We’re competing against sides with either equal or greater resources—that’s the real context. Do we, though? I think we’ve all watched enough matches to know that when a team goes behind, they often raise their game and pile on the pressure. There’s more to the tactical side than just our own decisions. Kilmarnock’s approach, how they adapted after us scoring, and other factors also come into play. We’re not operating in isolation. I don’t think our manager has any illusions about us being defensively solid enough to grab a goal and then say, “Right, lads, let’s sit back and trust our brilliant defence to shut Killie down.” I genuinely think it’s about the momentum of the match. I’ve seen it far too often, whether it’s us or other teams, where conceding a goal sparks a reaction, and for a spell, they go all-out to get back into the game.