MelvinBragg

Aye, interesting choice of phrase from Alan Burrows. The club have not received an offer or an enquiry from any other club at this time and he is a contracted player. Doesn't say that McDonald hasn't asked to leave and the phrase "at this time" is just asking people to speculate...

For this I'd go with Samson Tait Heneghan McManus Hammell Cadden McHugh McLean Thomas Blyth Johnson I'd keep the same back four as they need games to gel and Hammell looks like he needs games for sharpness. I'd play Thomas, Blyth and MacLean as we need to give them games to see if they are ready for the first team. Giving them 20 minutes at the end of a game doesn't give them any real chance to get to grips with a game. With more starts, comes more match awareness and increases their ability to make an impact if they do have to come off the bench at some point. Risky? Yes. But we could have the likes of McDonald and Ainsworth on the bench as options and if these guys can't do it against Annan a few days after they've had to chase the ball for 90 minutes around Ibrox then it probably gives the manager the message that he shouldn't be relying on them in the SPL this season...

Ferguson being offered a new deal didn't bother me too much. Even at 21, I'd suggest his wage demands would be a lot less than Heneghan, Laing or Kennedy. Having him as fourth choice centre back, I'd be fine with. Did we "need" to sign Heneghan? And if we felt he was a vast improvement on Laing and Kennedy, then surely money could have been saved moving one of them on. Up front, when our options with any first team experience were Moult, McDonald and Moore, the signing of Blyth made a bit of sense to me as Moult was the only tall, lead the line striker we had, Mackin being relatively untested. Letting Moore go turns that totally around in that we have Moult, Mackin and Blyth, all relatively similar and only McDonald as a different type. Unless the management see this as a role for Dom Thomas, something I wouldn't object to. Midfield, McHugh looks to have been bought with the idea of replacing Keith Lasley in the very near future so playing them both may leave us too defensive in midfield. Ideally, I'd be looking at ending the season with a midfield of Cadden, McHugh and a Pearson replacement. Alternative would be to go back to McCall's 4231, with McHugh and Lasley sitting and Cadden, Johnson and McDonald supporting a lone striker but this doesn't seem McGhee's chosen style. It just seems to me that there's no joined up thinking in the transfer strategy...

You start to wonder, don't you? I have my suspicions that McGhee and McDonald could both be trying to pressure the club subtly to find funds for a couple of players. McGhee with his "ambition to stay up" and McDonald possibly moving (could be interpreted as not being happy with the team he's surrounded by) makes me wonder if the feeling among the "football people" at the club is that the squad is not fit for purpose...

I'm not the biggest fan of McGhee but I find it hard to believe that he'd have let Moore go if there was an offer on the table for McDonald that the club were considering. What I would say, and in no way am I commenting on the quality of the new signings as I haven't seen enough of them, is that the club's transfer business this summer has left me a bit puzzled. For the first time in a while, we have two experienced first team goalkeepers. We have signed a centre half when it didn't seem to be a priority and have lost three midfielders and signed one. If we find ourselves in a situation where when everyone's fit that our striking options are Moult, Blyth and Mackin then it's fair to say questions would have to be asked. At the moment, I'd say I'm concerned but not panicking. But it wouldn't take much for me to say that we were in a bad way. Maybe explains McGhee's stated ambition was to stay up...

Some interesting points a) Why move Moore out then? b) Squad no different to when he signed his deal. Was he naive in thinking we would suddenly be bringing in quality players? c) How much can it have deteriorated in the two or three weeks since he signed? d) Find this hard to believe. If Hibs had time to make an offer when he was out of contract, pretty sure Sydney did as well. Concerning that we may lose our second top scorer from last season, having already lost our third and with our top scorer going in for an operation and not having had a proper preseason due to this...

Certainly fits the age profile of our Scottish signings...

McFadden as a cheap striker option, I saw someone suggest? Would rather go with Moore for that role...

Alarming if that means Chalmers is our backup midfielder. Did well today when all that was required was breaking up play but didn't do much to suggest he can offer more in that position. Campbell and MacLean may have to step up...

As others have picked up on, a negative would be that the finishing and final ball was poor today. Must start taking our chances because even with as little possession as we had, we created chances today. Certainly suggests we'll be able to do so in games where we have more of the ball...

Not too disheartened. Could have been better but these are not the games our season will depend on. Back four were under a lot of pressure given the amount of possession they had and stood up reasonably well. Tait looks decent if a little lacking in pace. Midfield. McHugh looks OK but we clearly need more bodies in there. Chalmers did ok in terms of closing down and harrying but not great in possession. Actually thought Ainsworth was better than Johnson today and McDonald did what he could with what he was given to work with. Not a disaster and had we taken any of our early chances, it might have unsettled them. Like I said, not too downbeat but I don't know if that's because my expectations were lowered by the reports from Easter Road...

Started well, they're coming back into it though. A lot better than I feared...

Apparently Moore has impressed in preseason. Injured today?

Or 433 with Chalmers taking the Pearson role. Can barely type that for laughing...

Subs?

Dear lord, not keen on that lineup at all. Almost as surprised to see Ainsworth starting as Chalmers...

Where did you hear that?

Hadn't even thought about that. Imagine there are some (no doubt badly worded, convoluted) to cover such things. Jon Obi Mikel is one I remember changing hands very young and Chelsea, having to fork out for him...

Of course, the flipside is that if the likes of Semple and Robbie Leitch don't develop as the larger clubs hope then we have got a fee for a player we might have released at the age of 20. If the player does develop, you'd hope in Semple's case we'll be smart enough to try and negotiate a sell on percentage...

Customers or fans? This thread is going down a well worn path that has been debated here before. The club wants us to be loyal fans and at the same time act like customers by paying our cash in return for a product (entrance to a game, replica shirt) without asking too many questions. A fan will want to know more than a customer. The thing with football clubs is they generally don't lose customers to other football clubs. They just lose customers who decide they don't want the product anymore. If someone isn't enjoying going to a certain pub or restaurant, they'll try another one. It's not like they say "I'm not going to a pub or a restaurant anymore, I'll just get takeaways" (maybe there is a comparison here, with the clubs as bars and restaurants and Sky Sports as takeaway). The thing is that clubs think that the loyalty of fans means that they can sometimes get away with shoddy customer service or a sub standard product. And they are right. If I were to stop going to Motherwell games if it were an unpleasant experience, I'd have stopped years ago. But people change and not everyone has the same tolerance for poor performances or customer service. Hence dropping attendances. What complicates matters is fan ownership. Fans already feel like the club "belongs" to them and as such some have more of an interest in what goes on behind the scenes. If you are looking for fans to buy into ownership, that only gets magnified. So I wouldn't slate anyone for wanting to know as much as possible. Even if I lean more towards Al B's point of view in that I care about the product on the park and everything else not so much...

Or Louis Laing. None of the options are ideal which kind of throws into sharp focus how thin on the ground we are in midfield that one player suspended has us scrambling around for alternatives...

Interestingly on the BBC Scottish ins and outs page, it has Robbie Leitch to Burnley (undisclosed). Given the accuracy of the BBC's reporting on non Old Firm matters, don't know whether to believe that means that we got a fee or not...

This would be far too simple. Football rules and regulations appear to be written by lawyers in order that the authorities sound smarter than they are. Try reading the rules regarding offside and you start to wonder if it's even written by someone who has watched a game of football...

Unbalanced is how I'd describe it. I figure on Saturday we'll line up Samson Tait Henegham McManus Hammell Cadden Campbell McHugh McDonald Blyth Johnson If any of the midfielders pick up an early injury, what are the options from the bench. Moore with McDonald dropping into midfield? MacLean? Ainsworth? Most football matches are won and lost in midfield and we don't have many options there...

I'm well aware it's a squad game but as it stands we have four recognised centre halfs, four recognised strikers and two recognised central midfielders with a couple of untested or 'might be able to play there' options in each position. You cannot tell me that squad looks well balanced...