Andy_P

A largely self-inflicted loss but one that brings a growing sense of annoyance at our governing bodies. I thought the starting eleven deserved another go based on their performance last weekend but it was a worryingly sluggish start, The defending for their goal was really poor but I thought it did spark us to life and if anything we were the better team for much of the remainder of the half with Watt being particularly unfortunate with his effort off the post. I thought we were very unlucky not to have got a penalty too. A positive change from the manager at the interval although I might have been inclined to go with Hastie rather than Long but the task became all the more difficult with Polworth's red. It remains to be seen what was said and it isn't the first time he's shown himself to be unnecessarily argumentative and niggly but what I will say is if that I see games week in, week out where players are snarling at other players and officials without being reprimanded for it. On the back of the messing about with the St Mirren/Killie appeal, Madden's penalty at St Mirren, the offside last week and now this, patience with our esteemed FA is growing somewhat thin. Commendable that Alexander showed ambition to try to rescue the game but at some risk as the repeated saves (some excellent ones at that) from Kelly showed. And all ultimately for nothing with further poor defending for the second. Ultimately a defeat somewhat in keeping with many this season. Far from being outclassed by the opposition but sooner or later shooting ourselves in the foot and suffering for it.

Your thoughts and votes please...

Deep breath.....

I think that does the board and coaching staff and the work they've done over the last half decade or so a considerable disservice, particularly given the current set of accounts doesn't even include the sale of the aforementioned "once in a generation talent". The plan was clearly stated from day one that their perceived route of progression was to eradicate outstanding debts and improve the financial standing of the club through the development and subsequent sale of our talent augmented by recruitment and selling at a profit where possible. A David Turnbull or James Scott doesn't just drop out of the sky, they are identified, recruited and coached for what in some cases are more than a decade. A Marvin Johnson, Ben Heneghan or Louis Moult similarly isn't just a random pick. Whilst there have been factors like Hutchinson's "Double your money" scheme which chipped away at the debt there is no question that the route taken has been hugely successful in transforming the position of the club when fan ownership became a reality to the position we find ourselves in now. I think there's a bit more too it than mere fortune. EDIT: TLDNR version - largely what Dave posted more quickly and more succinctly.

I'm kind of mindful of the fact that questions were asked why Motherwell were signing players little more than a few weeks after a number of players had left the club when we went into administration back in 2002. Our reply was something along the lines of are a professional football club who require players to play football and if we don't sign them we run the risk of relegation which puts the future of the club in some jeopardy. I don't really see any reason if asked why Kilmarnock need not respond along similar lines. If there is finance for a club to tap into and they consider it best used to put towards their playing side then that's regardless of however unpleasant the look or the morals involved they are entitled to do that. I'm glad however in this instance it isn't us!

I'm not sure that bears scrutiny to be honest. Not all managers but there's half a dozen examples of budget being mentioned by clubs of our ilk. Some trying to put a lid on expectation levels, some offering some context as to where they stand in the grand scheme of things, some using it a spur that budget doesn't always determine league position. All of which Robinson and the club through social media channels did across his reign. Brian Rice Tommy Wright Martin Canning Callum Davidson Roy MacGregor Gary Holt

It does make me chuckle how you repeatedly dig up Robinson for his accurate summation of the budgetary constraints he was working to and then have subsequently gone at least twice to suggest the signing of a player who routinely features in the match day squad of a English side in the top eight of Premier League and into the knock-out stages of the Champions League.

A win would be nice.

In fairness to Craig Moore he was unlikely to score a league goal after Moult's arrival given that he didn't play a single game for Motherwell after Moult's arrival.

Your thoughts and votes please....

The point? Well for me we've spent the last half a decade or so trying to eradicate hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of debt, and much of that was on favourable terms to people who came up with schemes like Hutchinson's double your money and people who were adding little or nothing in the way of interest. It's to help ensure we never return to such a position. When the team went training the other day they did so to a place to where they need to compete with others to use and have to pay when they do so, over and above what they already do. It's ensure we have training facilities of a standard that we can use when we want without the need to pay more use externally. When they returned from training they did so to a stand that is constructed of wood and requires thousands of pounds spent on it ever year to meet ever more stringent legislation to ensure it can be used. It's to be as prepared as they can be when the day comes that they can simply no longer keep using that stand. That's the point when such sums are accrued. Don't get me wrong I would like to see as much of a budget provided to the manager as possible but it is the board's responsibility to look beyond the current situation whether good or bad and prepare as fully for the future as they can.

What do we have to appeal though? We were under no threat of sanction. I tend to agree with the earlier posts that whilst we have been considerably inconvenienced the best course of action for us it to keep our counsel, at least publicly, and ensure that six points from six are secured when the fixtures are eventually played. If the club make a song and dance about it and you just stand to be accused of showing desperation in trying to get six points without earning them. I think it's fine as fans for us to make the obvious points but much as we've been messed around we would ultimately gain nothing from any public complaining.

Reading the extremely brief SPFL statement they don't give the impression of being particularly enamoured with the SFA's decision. It reeks of the kind of brief, embittered acknowledgement that is released by a club when they've been slapped down. In fact it's not a kick in the arse off a Celtic style "seeking clarification" press release.

The irony of which of course being Campbell and Maguire had to miss games as a consequence of being on an SFA trip!

And who is to say we won't bring in a player for those positions? There is more than a fortnight of the transfer window remaining. Because it is the first outfield signing of the window, doesn't mean it will be the only outfield signing of the window. What signing Lawless do is immediately is better what we have out wide and add to our options. For one thing we now someone who is capable and comfortable wide rather than shoving a striker out wide. That he has been seen to offer a goalscoring threat over the years as well as creativity is a further benefit. This in turn will release either Cole or Watt to play up front where they should be more effective, whether that's one or as a pairing than either or being stuck out wide. I can't see given the paucity of chances created in recent times why an attempt to improve on what we have would be perceived so negatively.

Oh come on. Someone has been at worst been a steady player in the top flight for more than half a decade and who hit double figures in his last season in the top flight isn't "piss poor".

Quite enjoyed a wee bit of reminiscing going through the full thread. A couple of posts with especially good foresight about our Champions League involvement! Maybe Frazzle's unwittingly hit upon an idea there to occasionally bring back a thread from the dead for viewing to see what the talk of the day was.

I'm of much the same mind. I was as surprised with the depth and clarity of the explanations offered as I was with the actual 3-0 determinations.

Three points. Easy.

Scottish Cup Draw 11am

And the rest!

Your thoughts and votes please...

We'll need to establish how friendly he is with Burrows first of course.

Left feeling a bit irked after that. There's positives of course but right now it feels like another missed opportunity. First half was largely excellent. Should have been a couple of goals to the good by half-time. Some good individual performances. Collectively really good and barely gave St Mirren a sniff, Fraser's sclaffed effort aside. Bit more clinical and the points could have been ours by quarter to four. Quite a drop off in performance in the second half and St Mirren increasingly became more offensively minded but yet for all that until they were gifted the penalty I can't recollect St Mirren forcing Kelly to make a save of note. There's surely some confirmation bias at play with Madden when it comes decisions in the Motherwell box. You can argue we don't do ourselves any favours at times but history proves him to be remarkably adept at finding offending challenges, handballs and shirt-pulls in our penalty box. It's a fair starting point for Alexander but I can't help but feel given the level of control we had in the first half, and that our concession came as it did, that we've left two points behind that we really should have taken.

Seeing is believing?