MelvinBragg

Another defensive midfielder when we have McHugh, Campbell and Bigirmana (who I believe is a deep lying midfielder if not strictly a defensive one) seems excessive. If he can play right back as well, is he being brought in as a squad player? As someone else stated, starting to sound like Carl McHugh at centre back...

Interestingly Burrows said 'at least five'. I'd assume that meant five unless we can move others on...

I understand that a lot of people are expecting us to sign a new first choice left back. And I reckon Robinson would love to do so. But with McDonald to replace, central defenders to find and Hammell probably taking home a decent wage, I reckon it'll be a cheaper option this summer with a view to properly replacing Hammell next summer...

Only 11 or 12 games from what I can see? Obviously have never seen him play but I suspect we'll be looking for someone who can play both left back and centre half or someone who can play left back and right back...

That was my first thought too...

At the moment we have four centre midfielders under contract. Bigirmana McHugh Clay Campbell And three wide midfielders, wingers Frear Cadden Tanner With Lasley triggering a clause he adds another option in the middle although I suspect only from the bench when we're looking to see games out. Also expect Gordon to offer an option there. Then you have MacLean and Thomas in wide areas. Looking at that, it's not inconceivable that we want another couple of midfielders. Others seem to suspect that Clay will be moved on and Campbell is still pretty young and untested like MacLean. Dom Thomas? Who knows whether the long overdue period on loan will have sharpened him up enough for him to be ready to contribute in the first team. Must confess, a couple of days ago I was thinking "too many midfieldera, unbalanced squad" but starting to see that there may be room for one more...

Where did you get that report on him or have you seen him play?

If we are signing another midfielder in Rose, is he the attacking midfielder Robinson was talking about? And if so, does it put the Scougall chat to bed? Can't help but feel our signings suggest to me we'll be seeing Carl McHugh at centre back next season...

Is this the attacking midfielder we were after? If not, we're really going to bamboozle teams with our 0-10-0 formation...

Why? What did he say?

I suspect that he's not the only footballer on holiday right now...

I concur but it's an unpopular opinion...

If we don't sign an attacking midfielder in the next few days, guess we'll know it was Scougall and we got gazumped..

Sounds like we won't need to wait too long to find out whether Scougall is the attacking midfielder or not...

So looks like we have our two keepers lined up. Interested to see the attacking midfielder we have lined up if it all goes well. I'd have thought midfield wasn't a priority given we've signed two already so this guy must be worth going for...

We currently have zero goalkeepers, two central defenders and one left back under contract for next season. Even at right back, the second choice is McMillan and it's uncertain whether Robinson rates him or not as he has been injured for most of the time Robinson has been in charge. Safe to say that the defensive area of the team is where we should (and I expect will) be looking to strengthen next. Given our limited budget, I expect to see us signing a player can play both left back and centre half (as both Chalmers and Jules were said to be able to do). We simply can't afford to have two established professionals for each position (another reason I expect to see McHugh fill in at centre back often next season). As such, I don't think strikers or attacking players should be a priority right now. I already stated that all of our strikers seem to of the same general type. That being said, it's still four players taking home what will be some level of a first team wage. Until one or two of them are moved on, talk of signing two strikers is fanciful at best. Assuming no one else leaves, for me the minimum shopping list would be 2 goalkeepers 1 player who can play left back and centre half. Given the numbers we have elsewhere, that's the basics. Would it be good to have other options elsewhere? Yes, but if you're talking minimum, that's the number. Obviously that number changes if one or two players leave. Quality over quantity and a bit of versatility required. Interesting that Robinson mentioned that Tanner could play several positions. That kind of flexibility (like McHugh's ability to play in more than one position) will be more important than simply the number of players we have...

I'm interested to read people saying that we'll need to sign "at least one more" midfielder. If you take wingers and "wide midfielders" into account, by my reckoning we have McHugh Clay Campbell Cadden Frear Bigirmana Tanner Campbell MacLean Thomas Gordon You can argue about whether Gordon, Thomas and MacLean deserve to be on that list. I'd argue that in Gordon's case, Robinson's willingness to use him in crucial games after the split suggests he will be considered an option. MacLean was breaking through before his injury (albeit under McGhee) and if Thomas isn't considered a first team squad member, we'd be as well moving him on. That's a lot of midfielders, irrespective of what you think of their abilities. Signing another midfielder without moving anyone on would make the squad look unbalanced to me. Part of me suspects that if we sign another midfielder then it will mean we're selling Heneghan and McHugh may become our first choice centre half. Not saying it's a choice I would make but wouldn't astound me to see it happen. On the subject of unbalanced squads, while I don't think Fisher is a bad signing (certainly explains Mackin's release), all four strikers we currently have are what I would term "number nines". None of the four seem suitable for the McDonald role of playing off a striker who's leading the line, unless that's a role Robinson has Tanner earmarked for (judging by his comments, I wouldn't rule it out). Clearly we're nowhere near finished our transfer business but I don't think we'll see as many additions as some are expecting unless others leave...

Notice Scott Mullen on Twitter saying that Motherwell are closing in on a couple of signings and that the deals could even be done tomorrow...

Four managers from Northern Ireland in the Scottish Premiership. Why are we the only ones being linked (even if only on Twitter and on forums) with any and every player from Northern Ireland? Is that the extent of the club's imagination? Or is it more likely that once again that the club is keeping a lid on accurate news and people are just guessing? Would we even consider it a possibility that we would sign Lafferty this summer if he wasn't Northern Irish? Don't see why his nationality makes it more likely...

I wouldn't be breaking the bank to sign him but I don't think we'll be breaking the bank for anyone. McDonald's wages to go to him? Would he be worth it..?

It would be good to see some early movement. Ignoring Blyth, the early signings like Heneghan, Tait and McHugh faired better than those picked up on trial or in last minute desperate moves (Belic and Lucas being the obvious examples). I know we can't always get our number one target and sometimes we need to wait to see who is available but too often recently our approach has been to grab whoever is available at the last minute...

Shirt sponsor?

I know we need new signings but one bit of business I'd like to see the club doing this summer is extending McHugh's contract if possible. Out of contract next summer and could be a really crucial player for us next season. I know it's not really how we normally do things but if nothing else, it may get us a fee next summer. If Heneghan has caught some clubs' eye, pretty sure McHugh might if he gets a full season...

I'm assuming that they'll be in the North section. Although with the SPFL, you never know...

I was at the wind up with the reference to to Gunning and Law even though Robinson signed Law last summer. Regards the alleged offer for Moult. Could O'Halloran play a similar role to McDonald in playing off a striker leading the line? Possibly. But we are in a peculiar position of swap deals not really suiting us as, as has been pointed out, transfer income being used to pay off specific debts. On the other hand, Rangers are alleged to have paid £500k for O'Halloran. That would technically see Moult valued at £700k. Club could certainly make a case for saying that they got value there and address the need for a replacement for a key player without spending on a transfer fee. Would that tempt the board? It might. As much I'd rather not see Moult join Rangers, I'm braced for it...