MelvinBragg

I like O'Brien a lot but he looked at fault for the Falkirk goal when you see it on the highlights. Just arriving too late to cover Holden. Though given the length of time Craigan was down before the free kick was taken, the manager had more time to try and organise the team. Maybe he thought the team should have been able to defend at least one free kick without Craigan. More fool him, eh...

Never has so much been written by so many about so little... I'm not a member of the Trust but I can see why it could be a good thing. If fans want to try and influence certain things are done at their football club, an official voice like a Trust is probably the way to go. Those complaining that the Trust doesn't do enough might consider the fact that if they joined, a Trust with a larger membership may carry more weight in any discussions with the club? Why haven't I joined then? Well, I don't really have the time to care about issues off the field. That's not meant as a criticism of those who wish to improve the lot of the supporters, I've just accepted that I'll go to the games no matter how they treat us and as I've said, I frankly don't really have time to worry about that fact. On the field is where I worry most about Motherwell. If the team are winning, they could serve nothing but dry bread and water at the catering stall. Until the Trust convince me that they could influence Motherwell into signing a decent centre back, my tenner stays in my pocket... My message to those outwith the Trust who do vex themselves at the Cooper situation, the lack of understanding from stewards, any ticketing issues, lack of communication from the club, paint on the stairs etc, is join the Trust. The Trust being there and you not using it to communicate your concerns with the club (what it's there for) is like having a phone but deciding the best way to contact yer Granny in Aberdeen is open the windae and shout... To the Trust, I say one thing. Certain Trust board members I have spoken with are dismissive of the opinions of the Supporters Association and even those of older members of the Trust itself. It seems to perceive the membership of the SA as old farts. It's a young organisation, the Trust, but it's there to communicate the opinions of all supporters, irrespective of age...

That caught my eye as well. Given the size of the average Inverness player, I autonatically thought of Bob Malcolm...

Cowie. Leaves me a bit underwhelemed. I know I'm in the minority but he's left me pretty unimpressed every time I've seen him play. Should he sign, he'll get my backing obviously. Lappin. Bound to be cheaper than Charlie Adam who McGhee has expressed an interest in. If we're going to sign a left sided midfielder, I'd go for Lappin. Cheaper probably and also offers a bit more versatility. Interesting McGhee talks of three signings. Do the three signings include the goalkeeper? If so, where will we strengthen? Even with McLean due to return, McGhee must look to bolster the defence. If another transfer window passes without this issue being addressed questions have to be asked. The player doesn't need to be able to step into the first team. It would just be nice to see some pressure brought to bear on the back four in order to attempt to raise their standards. It would be nice to move Bob Malcolm on. No harm to the guy, but he's an expensive substitute. Can't honestly see it happening, unless it suits both parties to let Malcolm walk away for nothing. That would require Motherwell being able to use the wages to bring in a couple of players (no point in letting him go if we can't secure the players to provide the cover in a couple of positions that he does) and it would also require an offer tempting to Malcolm whether financially or professionally (first team football??). Sadly, I fear we might end up having a very quiet transfer window...

Another loan goalie to replace Neilson was always going to be a necessity so at least we've dealt with that issue (I've resigned myself to the fact that we'll never have two goalies registered with us full time ever again). We're looking at two centre backs but forgive me if I don't get too excited as it all sounds very familiar from previous transfer windows. Like Juan Kerse, I'm imagining it would be Reynolds that would make way should any new signing force his way into the first team. On this season's form, that should certainly be the case. Does Reynolds fit elsewhere into McGhee's plans? There have been a few people on the forum suggesting he could play a holding midfield role. With Lasley, Malcolm and Klimpl already vying for that role, I can't see him fitting in there. He would probably offer more than Hammell defensively at left back, but we rely heavily on our full backs for attacking width so I don't know if he'd fit the bill there. A summer move beckons for Reynolds? Question is how much will we get for him if he drops out of the first team?? The guy Elliot is an interesting one. Not knowing what type of midfielder he is, I don't know what he'll bring to the team. What I do know is that with Klimpl's recent showings in midfield, it's the one area of the park we have a few players competing for places (Will Malcolm start a Motherwell game again?). Again I ask, someone moving on?

Can't get the link to work. Someone new or the guy Elliot or the guy playing in the Czech republic??? EDIT Ignore this, it's working now...

Horrible feeling of deja vu here. I seem to remember in the run up to the Nancy game, there was a lot of "I'm more of a fan because...". Can we please not go there again, people...

Nijholt. Hard as nails and skillful. What more can one ask for in a footballer...? Although, it's interesting that it's not always the "best" players who become our particular favourites. I still have a soft spot for Gahagan, Valakari and McFadden and only one of the three is likely to be mentioned in terms of greatest Motherwell players when it comes to ability...

Aye, but none of them are Vadocz, are they...?

I'm afraid that his considering the Hearts job used to irk me but that's no longer the main issue for me. It's been far overtaken by poor team selections, baffling tactics and substitutions and substandard performances as reasons to be pissed off at him. Now, he knows football, if he expects the fans to be happy after 10 hours of football and only one goal to show for it, he's a fool. And I don't think he's a fool...

I shall be there, but sadly not for the festivities afterwards. As of 7:30pm, I'll be patching up Old Firms fans at WGH. No anasthetic left as far as I'm aware...

Well, if it's off now, Flow's totally been hung out to dry...

While I may agree with Mitch and Jay, I have to say that McGhee has struck me as generally quite an intelligent guy. And as I've stated before, he's been in football a long time. That's why I find his choice of words strange. He could have said "After the season we had, I expected the fans to have a bit more faith in me". You could still argue that given the recent run of results he had used up some of that goodwill, but it wouldn't have been as offensive as questioning people's loyalty. I can't believe that he didn't consider what he said before he said it. Which makes me think he's trying to engineer a "I've lost the fans, no point in me staying where I'm not appreciated" excuse for walking away...

I posted this in the "In the papers" section, but I think it fits better here

The loyalty comment amused me. McGhee (rightly, in my opinion) got rid of Corrigan last season. This despite the years of loyal service Corrigan had offered. Remember Corrigan was one of those who took a pay cut when we went into administration, he turned down more lucrative offers in order to stay at Fir Park, a guy that had put in a lot of years good service with us. McGhee moved him on because he simply wasn't up to doing the job. A few more weeks of defeats and you have to question whether McGhee is up to doing the job. McGhee has been in football a long time. He knows that loyalty only lasts as long as you are able to produce...

Talk is cheap. Let's judge the team by their actions. And what's "this crap about crisis". We are in crisis. If one goal in over ten hours of football is not a crisis then someone explain the rules of the game to me again...

Players always say they're right behind a manager right up til they get him sacked. And then they start winning...

I'm starting to think that's why Reynolds looked so good in the season under Malpas...

I'm assuming you mean Porter's off in January?? I just got a txt message telling me that there is a possibility Clarkson could be away in January. Anyone heard anything??

Aye, this season's perfomances probably merit about six months in the Bar-L...

Bit much having a go at Mitch for saying what others are saying in the other threads (perhaps he's saying it a bit more drunkenly). And as for needing another thread, we do miss the old Resign McGhee thread. OK, well I miss it...

Agree wholeheartedly with the full post but this section particularly caught my eye. What you've described above, is that not basically the role of any good football manager? And if McGhee is not doing this at the moment, what is he doing...???

I kind of thought that as well until the summer when I watched back some of the highlights of last season. The 5-3 Dundee United game, the cup game at Hearts, two good wins against Hibs, Paterson flying (cos the pace he acquired seemed to stay unlike McGarry's) past the opposition full backs featured heavily. Perversely (and I think this is the thing that surprises me the most), looking at last season, Paterson seemed more solid defensively than Hammell...

My main complaint regarding communication is the back four seem unable to communicate...

The team selection today was bizarre even by this season's standards for McGhee. We can safely assume that Kenny Connolly will never see the light of day in a Motherwell first team again. I'm told Fitzpatrick was sick so was only fit enough for the bench. But was the best option for the centre midfield slot a full back?? Whatever you think of Malcolm's relative strengths and weaknesses, he at least has some experience of playing centre midfield. For what it's worth, it smacked of McGhee wanting Quinn in the team (he had cited the absence of Quinn, Clarkson and Craigan as reasons for our poor performances so could hardly leave him on the bench) but not wanting to drop Saunders knowing he was the one relative bright spot from Monday night. Once again, McGhee has the eleven players he wants in the team and he'll get them in there irrespective of what it does to the shape of the team. McGarry at left wing. I stated my reasons earlier in the week why I felt this was a terrible idea. A few people seem to have the same problem with this deployment of a slow, right footed player. Unfortunately Mark McGhee doesn't seem to be one of them. Question: Is McGarry a striker or midfielder? I ask only because his good early season form last year was when he was the third man up top when McCormack was unavailable. Is he the answer to playing 4-3-3? I ask this in order to show I'm not anti-McGarry, just think he's not the man for the left wing. Neither was Clarkson when we played him there earlier in the season. Why did we sign Jim O'Brien again?? The defence. Where to start. We don't really have many options for changing things at the moment. Which is a blow because quite frankly Reynolds looks like a player in need of a rest before his confidence is totally shattered. Echoes of David Clarkson of a few years back? And look how long it took him to get back to something like the form he's capable of. Hammell's not Paterson but there's not a lot we can do about that. Perhaps Hammell should watch some videos of Paterson from the first half of last season. Yes, Steven, you are allowed to go outside as well as inside your man. I specifically have avoided a full on rant about McGhee. I've done it too often before and there's really nothing to be gained by going over old ground. I've tried to just ask questions that I think we all need answered...