MelvinBragg

So you're looking at close to £5m to break even? If our core support of 3000 each paid an average of £10 a month into the society (optimistic, I know), that would raise only around £360,000 a year. 2500 season tickets at average £300 raises only £750,000. Obviously you add in TV money and prize money and other revenue the club brings in but you start to wonder how a club like ours can ever break even and I'm impressed we even got as close as we did...

I appreciate that. What I'm asking is to be at the level we're at just now, how much does it cost?

Just a question for those who pay more attention than me, how much roughly would the club have to make each year to break even?

We have Kennedy and Watt for right back and Gomis, Cadden, Leitch and McLean for midfield. Why spend money we don't have to...?

Wes Fletcher has played something like 400 minutes of first team football over 12 appearances. The equivalent of four and a half games, with a few starts but mostly 20 minute cameos here and there. Is it really fair to judge him on that? First two games of the season, he looked decent. Injury, and the form of Louis Moult, have stopped him from coming back and getting a run in the team. I think to question whether we should retain him on the basis of his lack of ability is slightly unfair. To question whether we should retain him on the basis of his injury record? That's another question...

Three points will do it. Or can you really see Accies winning four of their nine games AND Killie winning five of their nine? Even if they didn't have to play each other that'd be a stretch. And would also involved Partick and Inverness losing their games against them, probably keeping them below us. For me, one win will do. Ideally we'll get it before the split but I reckon we'll win at least one of the post split games. We managed to do that last season, when we weren't playing as well...

I would say that we're safe now. If we win one game between now and the end of the season, Kilmarnock will need to win five of their remaining nine games and Accies would need to win four of their remaining nine. One of those might happen, can't see both teams going on that kind of run...

Moult for me. We've been used to strikers that either run themselves into the ground for the team or strikers that are prolific. He's both. If he manages to score 20 goals this season (and you have to figure he might), when our form has been up and down, it will be a fantastic achievement...

Listening to McDonald after the game, it sounds like the referee has seen the incident. I was under the impression that retrospective punishment could only be applied to incidents that the referee didn't see...

I know what you're saying there about Cadden and Hall but part of me is tempted to say that the guys that got us there deserve to keep their place in the final. Good experience for them and Cadden and Hall are getting plenty of experience as it is...

Thinking about Kevin Christie, was having a conversation about our right back situation on Saturday. Kevin Christie is another example of a player we converted to a right back. Paul Quinn was a centre back initially (and is so again), Tom Hateley was a midfielder (or thought he was), Luc Nijholt was a centre back converted to full back. Fraser Kerr also. I think Craig Reid played central defence before he came to us Other than Corrigan, Shannon and Burley, we've had a lot of people filling in at right back when it wasn't their natural position. Which is amusing given a couple of seasons ago, people on here were going on about us having a surplus of right backs...

Marvin's lack of form? He scored on Saturday...

Two players there that have come in and done the business. Moult is a striker who works hard and also manages to score his share of goals. Cadden ticks all the boxes. Looks like an athlete, but also good technically, and has good energy. Add in Ben Hall, and part of me thinks "Just survive relegation, having developed two of our young players and one we signed, maybe sell one to balance the books and there's a good base to start from". Particularly if Laing can develop into a decent right back, and Johnson can find some consistency. For me, Cadden, Moult and Hall are the real bright spots this season...

Wondering if it's 3412 with Johnson as the one behind the strikers? Laing at right back seems unlikely given McGhee has picked Law there every time he's gone with a back four...

Experience is one thing. There may be a large number of people with feelings for the club with the right experience and skills. Percentage of those willing to give up their time to do the job, knowing the scrutiny and criticism that comes with it? That, I suspect, is a pretty low number...

Big mouth...

I'd go with Ripley Watt Hall McManus Hammell Cadden Lasley Pearson McFadden Moult McDonald With a diamond midfield with Lasley at the base and McFadden at the top. It won't happen but that's how I'd set up. Leaves options on the bench to change it. I expect to see 442 with a midfield of Cadden Lasley Pearson and Johnson...

The strength of the opposition can be taken into account but that begs the question why our "better" players weren't providing assists against such weaker opposition...

Thing that leaps out at me straight away (and you can make stats prove anything you want, I know) is the assists provided by Ainsworth, Leitch and McFadden despite their limited game time. Three players who have at various times this season been described as a waste of a wage...

I'd suggest if it's 11 v 11 then someone who is on the park isn't doing their job...

So someone else wasn't doing their job...

So dropping Moult and one of the centre backs and bringing Hammell and Law in? Not convinced by that. By playing McFadden and McDonald, you're playing two forwards whose instinct is to drop deep...

I know this but it's be very easy to play it safe with the team lineup and drop Cadden and Hall. I've heard people mention an interview where apparently the manager has stated that he'll play the young players when we're safe from relegation. For me, you find out more about these players when the pressure is on and the game means something. Playing alongside these experienced players when this is the case, they'll learn more than playing alongside an experimental lineup for the last three games of the season when there's nothing to play for. For the club's financial model, we need these guys to learn and develop, alongside experienced players. I note with interest that a 14yo made his debut for the under 20 side yesterday. If you're good enough, you're old enough...

Not at all. My opinion of Mark McGhee doesn't stop me wanting Motherwell to win football games. But at the same time, one win against the team bottom of the league doesn't change my opinion of him. Particularly pleased that we found a way to win a game with five players (Laing, Hall, Cadden, Moult and Johnson) that we'd probably put in the category of "players we hope to develop and sell". That for me is what we should be looking at. Can we win games while developing these players? Last night indicated the answer is yes. The experienced players did well but the fact that Cadden, Hall and Laing all played their part hopefully puts to bed the myth that we need to rely on senior players until we are safe...

Answer to that one is probably not, short of playing McFadden on the right wing and then you lose Cadden's energy. The temptation would be to go with the same lineup as last night. You would then have the likes of Pearson, Ainsworth, Hammell and Law on the bench giving you a few options from the bench. Other option would be to replace Lasley with Pearson if Lasley is suffering the aftereffects of playing while not 100%...