MelvinBragg

He's the one we would miss the most and he's the one we can ask the largest fee for. All points to a deal being unlikely unless we get a ridiculous bid. Wouldn't rule out Forest testing us though if they can't get McGinn...

I agree with you that we need another central defender as things stand and that McHugh should stay in midfield. However if Heneghan leaves that would leave us needing two central defenders. If two suitable players aren't available but we can find one defender and a midfielder good enough to take McHugh's place in midfield, it's a solution I could live with. I stress that I'd prefer McHugh to stay in midfield but sometimes you need to adapt to the situation you find yourself in and McHugh at the end of last season certainly showed himself a more than adequate central defender...

Dreadful? He has played five games for them. I think he's been injured a fair bit so it might be a gamble there. Manager that signed him has moved on so I suspect he's surplus to requirements and that may be why fee might not be an issue..

That smells like McHugh to centre back and Grimshaw in midfield. Which I could possibly live with. Would prefer more cover at centre half though. Any talk of the position of the other possible signing...?

I don't remember Bowman pushing anyone but Dunne clearly pushed someone in the first half. I remember it simply because a couple of us were so convinced it was a penalty that we did that massive sigh bracing ourselves for the award...

We're not exactly a prolific discloser of fees as a club ourselves...

Not necessarily. Every deal is different...

Selling Heneghan will leave us very short at centre back. Dunne, Kipré and Plummer with little or no backup. Would hope we have someone lined up...

Depending on what position you're talking about whether we have strength in depth or not. Centre midfielders? Loads of them. Strikers? Falling out of cupboards. Centre halfs? Hmmmm, only one spare (Plummer) and he's relatively untested, and then we're converting a midfielder for cover. Potential sale of Heneghan will I reckon see McHugh at centre back and a midfield three of Rose, Bigirmana and Cadden with MacLean and Campbell as back up. Also could do with cover for Frear on the left. Fisher is not an option. I do agree with the general point that we have more options than before but if we're going to play three at the back we need more than four centre backs in the squad...

I actually thought Heneghan was patchy last season. Started reasonably well but then his form tailed off, only to pick up again when we switched to a back three. I actually think all three of our first choice central defenders look far more comfortable in a back three. Don't know if I'd be happy with any combination of Heneghan, Kipré and Dunne as the two centre backs in a back four...

Think of the sell on we could have had, eh? Baraclough, like Gannon, could spot the occasional decent player. Less of a psychopath though. It makes me feel slightly better about the times that Irvine ran the game against us, mind you...

Actually thought Cadden wasn't great in the first half. Really came into the game in the second half particularly when he moved to wing back. For me, Kipré was immense. Reckon he'll have a mad moment now and again but looks like an excellent signing...

This is true and suggests that there may be some interest but that probably it's at the early stages so might be more likely to be a bid in January...

I'd actually argue since Paul Quinn left. As fat tony says, it does strike you that Tait is very much the way full backs are in the modern game. Almost as if attacking prowess is seen as more important than defending. Or as someone said to me on Saturday, Tait's not a full back; he's a wing back...

The signings of Newell and Petravicius could be seen as blocking the path of U20s into the first team until you look at the ages of our attacking players in our U20s. Jake Hastie 18 Dylan Falconer 18 James Scott 16 Alfred Agyeman 16 Certainly would seem unreasonable to expect players of that age to be ready to step up into the first team. Newell and Petravicius have a couple of years more physical development so you would hope would be more ready to step up. Noticeable that we haven't brought in any midfielders at the age of 20-21 because Campbell and MacLean are readier than Hastie, Falconer and the others. Flipside to this would be any potential sale of Bowman. If Newell and Petravicius aren't quite ready for first team action, and we sell Bowman and Moult, it leaves us with only Fisher as a first team striker. It's all very well saying that we'll bring at least one replacement in but can we guarantee said replacement is fit and ready for first team action or are we likely to end up with someone like Newell and Petravicius who needs time to get up to speed? For me, we can afford to sell Bowman or Moult, not both. If in six months, Petravicius or Newell look ready for the first team then we can move another on...

To be fair, I'd do plenty bad... I'm kind of holding out hope that Rose does come good. Game seems to be passing him by at the minute but hoping that he just needs time to adjust or to the manager to find the right way to use him. Remember how Josh Law went from numpty midfielder to passable right back..?

I can see your thinking there but the loss of his power and pace would be massive. No one else in our midfield offers anything like that. While he offers more in a wide right role, I'd still rather have him in the middle than Andy Rose. Having a midfield three of Bigirmana, McHugh and Rose with only Campbell and MacLean as backups doesn't look anywhere near as strong...

If you believe what you read, seems to be the case. Upside? A bigger fee. Downside? For me, harder to replace...

No one plays 442 now as it leaves you outmanned in the middle of the park. Your option is to play 3 centre midfielders and one winger but that tends to expose one full back and make your attacks predictable and easy to shut down..

I had heard 25% of anything more than the original fee. Depends on what both fees are then...

Probably a couple of hundred grand. At least one wage could be squeezed out of that even if we are giving some of it to Hutchison and Boyle...

I agree on that. Has Plummer been brought in with this in mind? I don't know but he certainly seems to have different attributes to Dunne. Robinson has used Frear there, and this is no criticism of Frear, but it is not his game. Frear is becoming a real question mark in the squad. I feel that he offers a great deal but he is an anomaly in that he is the only player in the squad that truly doesn't seem to have a natural place in a 352...

I agree with the comments stating that MacLean isn't a natural winger. He may be able to offer something there but it's not his natural position. I know Tanner has featured mainly as a second striker so far but I suspect that Robinson might have seen him as an option there. Other thought that strikes me is that Robinson may always have had 352 in mind as his default formation and therefore didn't prioritise a winger as a new signing. Certainly a few of the new signings look more comfortable in that formation. Whether it's a case that we've signed players with that shape in mind or we have found that 352 suits the players we have signed, I don't know...

Yesterday was the first league fixture that on paper you'd fully expect us to win (as much as you ever 'expect' Motherwell to win). The fact is we did while missing three first choice players and playing pretty poorly for 45 minutes. On that basis, can't grumble too much.. Bowman and Fisher are both working hard and I get the impression that a league goal for both of them would see them relax a bit and see them start to score more regularly. I really hoped yesterday that in McHugh's absence that Rose would take more responsibility and show what Robinson sees in him. Sadly I didn't see it. The fact that two young players came on and made more of an impact than him puts more pressure on him. The much discussed back three approach has one major thing going for it. Dunne, Kipré and Heneghan all look far more comfortable in that shape. I'd argue that Heneghan has had his best performances in a Motherwell shirt in a back three. Whether Robinson has signed players specifically to play this formation or not, it certainly beats McGhee's square peg in round holes approach. Are there slight concerns over the balance of the team and certain signings? Yes. But on balance, things aren't looking too gloomy. Maybe a solution to the left wing back position is needed (Plummer?) and a slightly different option up front would be good but I reckon we're moving in the right direction...

Problem with a back four is unless you have a striker who can play as a lone striker, it means 442 and only playing two in centre midfield you can get outplayed in there. That's what happened to us yesterday. 433 or a 'squinty' 442 with one winger are your other options and until Frear returns we don't have a proper winger. Or a great option for left wing back for that matter. Maybe should be a signing priority..?