dennyc

Where exactly is the risk many folk are exaggerating? If he is fit but only half as good as he was, then he will be the second best striker we have. If he is anywhere near as good as we remember then he will push and concentrate VV. And his work ethic and hunger will rub off on the rest of the squad If he is injured and cannot play then you would expect the terms of the loan to allow us to return him to his parent club. He has fond memories of Fir Park and clearly gets on with Hammell. So his commitment will not be in doubt. The wages have been freed up and I would rather we give Moult a chance than try some journeyman second rate striker. If it does not work out with Moult, there will be plenty Free Agents available and that option will still be out there. It is a punt, but I don't see any risk. Are we better off player wise than we were last night? Well we are certainly no worse.

It was always only on loan anyway. Rightful owner and all that. Moult would probably settle for 999 anyway. Just in case he needs to dial it.

Or held a team meeting

What if he is actually fit? He has been on the Burton bench since season start so that is positive. Why would they have him on the bench if he is crocked? Agree it would be a risk. But on the right terms it might be one worth taking. Can we maybe wait and see how he performs and how often before writing him off.

And that plan worked well enough on Saturday until Lafferty went off. Maybe we relaxed a bit when Lafferty went off and did not readjust our set up at set pieces immediately. Leaving Goss to mark Taylor was clearly an error. No doubt that is something SH will be looking at. Strikes me that if Kelly is weak at dealing with cross balls as is suggested, then how come for two years we have chosen to play narrow at the back, conceding the wide areas and defending the inevitable barrage of cross balls? I see that under SH the full backs have been playing much wider and maybe that is an indication that he has identified the flaw in our previous game plan. It would not surprise me if SH wants to eventually go with 3 Centre Backs and 2 Wing Backs perhaps giving Kelly more protection from those cross balls. But that will take time and depends on recruitment.

Given that Lafferty had gone off, I would have hoped that whoever had been instructed to cover him at set pieces would have picked up Taylor rather than leaving it to Goss. But having taken Taylor, Goss allowed him a free run at the ball setting up a fairly straightforward finish. Although physically at a disadvantage, Goss could at least have tried to block the run. But yes the ball was in the air for ages and Sol should have had time to position himself better. Given the run Taylor was allowed, he may well have overpowered Sol in any case. I think Taylor scored a back post equaliser late on in a previous match so the entire defence should have been aware of that possibility. In short I think there were several players at fault for the goal.

Seems like it. But if you add in 12 months of failure at Hibs prior to that then it makes it less of a shock. Hibs fans I know had been calling for his sacking for months and were delighted to see him go. The shambles of their Scottish cup final defeat by Saint Johnstone, following on from a semi final thrashing by the same team, and their League form certainly contradicted the hype that was built round Ross . It was only his media mates that were up in arms and calling foul when he was sacked. He did well at Alloa followed by St Mirren and earned his step up. But he has now underperformed at three bigger clubs and failed to deliver despite substantial financial backing. I wonder how much in total he has invested across Sunderland, Hibs and United with no return? But I do accept American owners are more likely to act quickly. Does not mean they were wrong in this case though. Looking at the United squad, their are a good few that I would have been delighted to see at Motherwell. McGrath, Levitt and Middleton as examples. They would walk into our first team.

It is a difficult one to get the right balance. If a club with limited finances is going to invest £16k a week in respect of 3 or 4 players in the hope of success , that club would probably want to tie those players into a decent length of contract. The hope being that the players can be moved on for a sizeable fee before their contracts end. Thus recouping most of the money paid out over the period.....or even better earning a profit . So maybe 3 year contracts? Kelly springs to mind. If the contract is limited to only one year then the players can walk for nothing and seek even higher wages elsewhere if they are performing well. So the investment could be for nothing, on or off the pitch. I doubt loyalty would come into it. If the investment did not result in a cash windfall from Europe, or a domestic cup win, then a club could have a noose round their neck wage wise for the following two years at least. Committed to around £800k a season for three seasons in respect of only 3 or 4 players seems quite a burden to me. And possibly for under performing players. Given that in our case it would have been Alexander recruiting those players, I am delighted we did not take that gamble. And of course (as has already been mentioned) you have possible unrest within the squad at the wages being paid to a select few. Particularly if those on high wages are not contributing as expected.

Against Aberdeen and Livi, Efford's contribution as a sub was in important factor in both victories. From a defensive point of view he supported SOD who had run his heart out and was tiring. and on the offensive side he continued the attacking threat that SOD had provided all afternoon. Exactly the impact you hope a sub will have. Something that Alexander's substitutions constantly failed to achieve. So although he might not be a world beater, let's not underplay his contribution and improvement under Hammell. I certainly don't yet see him as a first team fixture but can we please acknowledge that he has shown up and contributed.

I take it your not saying it's ok because it also happens elsewhere? What happens at other clubs is irrelevant. If it is the case at Motherwell then it is an issue. An embarrassing and damaging issue.

Cannot remember the game...think it was away from home last season or season before. Did we not get a player sent off for a a jersey pull on half way to stop a break away? Can remember the argument that it was so far from goal so extremely harsh. And maybe same happened to Aberdeen (Devlin) last season? Thoughts were both fouls were regarded as stopping a goal scoring opportunity which I agree Lundstrum foul was not. For me that Rangers tackle was worse in that there was more danger of causing injury and if the rules say that is a yellow but a jersey tug on half way is a straight red, then the powers that be need to get a grip. And sorry, but our penalty yesterday was a joke. Clearly nowhere near a hand ball. Neither referee or Assistant had a clear view and guessed at the ball hitting an arm based on the reaction from several of our players, Goss in particular. If that had been given against us, this forum would be in meltdown......and rightly so. VAR will change nothing if current Scottish referees are doing the reviews on their "off days". After all it is their colleague out there and roles are likely to be reversed the following week. "Don't embarrass me and I wont embarrass you". And how on earth would Collum's ego allow him to be wrong? I'm all for VAR helping to arrive at the correct outcome, but to do that we need the video review folk to have as little conflict of interest as possible. So retired, non Scottish referees?

Don't think he triggered any clause. He sat out games until the Club agreed to change his contract before that clause (inserted at his request) was activated. One game short of the extension target. The deal was he that signed on to benefit us IF he got to into the Euros squad, but was free to walk for nothing thereafter. I don't think Motherwell had much choice to be fair. Any games he played after the new contract was signed did not count towards any extension. Worked out ok for us I guess but we were extremely lucky Clarke stayed loyal and selected him. It must have been a close call given he never got on the pitch at the tournament and I don't think he has featured since. His situation was entirely different from Watt who I believe gave his all even when it was evident Alexander did not want him long term. I got the impression Watt thought he was staying for at least another two seasons, until he found out otherwise. In other words he did not down tools like Gallagher. " Deccy is sitting it out until his contract is sorted out" was a quote from a team mate. And this was the same Tony Watt whose departure was the sole reason for our decline according to some. Until the reality of where Alexander was taking us hit home that is. Anyway, both players no longer have anything to do with Motherwell. Yesterday's men. But I would welcome Watt back.....on our terms. Gallagher not so much.

Albeit everyone is broadly supportive of Hammell, the Board have faced criticism from several on here. Noteworthy that those shouting loudest have had an axe to grind with the Board (and Burrows in particular) for some considerable time. Way before the decline since last December. So the past few weeks must have been orgasmic for them. More fuel to the fire and all that. Others have expressed concern but in a much more supportive, constructive manner. As you would expect on a fans' forum. But can you imagine the seethe from that first group if Hammell had been appointed within hours of Alexander leaving? From memory Burrows and the Board have been criticised for appointing Robinson, sacking Robinson, appointing Alexander, sacking Alexander, sacking Alexander to soon, being slow to ditch Alexander, appointing Hammell, not appointing Hammell immediately, and not taking enough time before appointing Hammell. My view is that the Board have acted promptly enough whilst taking the time to assess the merits of those interested in the position. I don't think the likes of Pep and Jurgen expressed an interest so perhaps some on here need a dose of realism. Having considered all the information available to them the Board decided to appoint Hammell, That's good enough for me and for anyone to question their integrity in doing so is farcical. For what it's worth I would have preferred Valakari but he too would have been a risk, although for different reasons. As for integrating different areas within the Club, youth in particular, I believe that set up existed successfully when Craigen was in charge of youth development. A system that was responsible for Turnbull, Hastie, Scott etc etc breaking into the first team and earning the Club millions. Within that system others were poached by Clubs such as Leeds, Norwich and Rangers. But again resulting in much needed income. Latterly under Robinson..... but more so under Alexander....., I believe that structure was dismissed and I wonder how much contact Alexander actually had with our younger players and Hammell/Kerr. Perhaps CoVid had a part to play. Alexander clearly preferred to bring in his own team of like minded coaches and preferred to recruit senior players he had previously worked with and trusted. That approach continued into this season despite its limitations as evidenced by our style of play and poor results in 2022. If Hammell and the Board believe a return to that earlier set up will help to secure our future, put a more attractive product on the pitch, and provide a better balance of experience and raw talent, then more power to them. Seems to me the people in charge are doing what they believe is best for Motherwell FC.

Disagree 100%. If anything the Board could be accused of being too loyal to Alexander...... and by all accounts serious consideration was given to making the change before the start of the season. And this is a Board who having made that original decision and seeing no hint of improvement, then acted swiftly and decisively. And how do you know they had no plan B already in their minds? Facts suggest otherwise. In a very short space of time they have sifted through over 70 applications (some perhaps invited), identified a short list of suitable applicants and conducted interviews. At the end of the day they have now announced the appointment of a young, qualified coach who has an in depth knowledge of the Scottish game and has Motherwell's best interest at heart. I think change was very much in the minds of the Board, but being the Club we are, Alexander was given the opportunity to show he had the ability and support to turn things around.

On the face of it, it might look like a cautious and cheap option. But what we now have is a young dynamic manager who has the Club's interest at heart. He has been in the Scottish game as a qualified coach for a good number of years and will have many decent contacts within the game. From his comments it is quite clear he was at odds with our style of play under Alexander and his team and is also well aware of the areas we must strengthen. I wonder how long he would have stayed around if Alexander had remained? The Board states resources will be made available to bring in new faces and so they need to follow through on that promise. In better times this would more readily be seen as an exciting, brave appointment that augers well for the future of the Club. He clearly has a bond with the fans which hopefully will give him time to put his plans into practice. It may take time but the thought of watching his brand of football rather than the eye bleeding rubbish we have been subjected for months has me well on board.

I would say realistic and positive. We could all do with a dose of that.

Phew! I think his Norway and Faroes success was at about third division level. And he has not followed even that up at the Blue Brazil. But for some reason he is held up as a great coach. Never seems to stay anywhere for any great length of time. Then again many fall into that category. I had heard Ross being mentioned before you came up with your tongue in cheek comment. But had dismissed it out of hand as nonsense.

You've got me worried now. Please tell me you are having a laugh. In a matter of months Ross managed to dismantle all the good work Craigen did with our youth/reserve/B team. Tactically clueless as shown against Hearts in the Reserve Cup Final which I had the misfortune to attend. Several of our promising youngsters seemed to disappear under his reign. Liam Brown for one was outstanding under Craigen but deemed not required under Ross. What was once a source of great talent and income for Motherwell produced next to nothing in Ross's time. He does appear to have contacts at Motherwell so I am not surprised his name has been mentioned. He is always held up by the usual BBC pundits as a star in the making and came to Motherwell highly touted. But for me he achieved little other than helping to warm up the first team pre game. If he gets the job, I hope my fears are misplaced. But not for me. There is a reason he has not been trusted with a job beyond Scandinavian and Scottish lower tier clubs. As evidenced by his record at Cowdenbeath. His spell as assistant at Notts County did not end well either. His CV does not stack up to the likes of Valakari and Lennon.

You might be on to something there. Maybe delete Spittal. Insert Kirk. He likes a goal up there.

Fair point. 3 years maybe? I was just surprised that Liverpool's nine CL/Uefa wins plus three Super Cup wins were not enough to take them above the clubs I mentioned. As Liverpool did spend time outside the the top division and were banned as you say, it suggests to me that the co-efficient to a degree reflects number of appearances whereas I thought achievement when actually participating would have a greater reward. Real Madrid of course have mastered both. So playing in a League like ours gives Rangers and Celtic a head start in collecting points over those who have to fight to get a European place. Ever presents since the early sixties sitting above the likes of Liverpool despite achieving little. Kiev as an example. I appreciate that the OF have appeared in a number of finals but others have not. Just an observation. That's all.

Again, it is not the fact Alexander dropped O'Donnell to the bench. That was justified in most folks eyes but perplexing when others were just as poor but retained their place regardless. So let's get that straight. What is being highlighted is that in our time of dire need, when his chosen replacement at right back was becoming a liability and rapidly losing confidence, Alexander refused to use O'Donnell off the bench...... or to even start a game. And that continued into this season even after our home performance against Sligo. Being on the bench, we have to assume that O'Donnell was fit enough and performed well enough in training to merit that place. O'Donnell's recent comments suggest he did just knuckle down and get on with it. So why not try him as the situation on the field became more and more depressing? No wonder most people believe it was personal and that O'Donnell was being made to suffer. Refuse the Bench position and he could have been suspended by the Club. Credit to O'Donnell for not going down the Declan route.

It is not really about O'Donnell though. It is about Alexander and his style of management. O'Donnell is just an example of that style and also Alexander's stubbornness and refusal to do what might have been good for the Club during a spell which at best can be described as poor. Slattery, Woolery. Lamie and to a lesser degree Tierney could all be substituted for SOD as players who were sidelined at a time when others were performing poorly but retained.......Goss, McGinley, Carroll, Shields, Efford, Ojala as examples. And you keep saying that folk are insisting O'Donnell should not have been dropped. That is just not true, no matter how often you repeat it. What people are saying is that when we were in freefall, Alexander for some reason totally ignored a player who he deemed good enough to sit on the bench and who represented his country. Not even worthy of a try at a time when his preferred selection was becoming a liability with confidence shot to pieces. And is still suffering. So instead of deflecting to the rights and wrongs of O'Donnell can you please comment on Alexander's performance from January to season end, including his team selections and formation? I say end season, but you can include this season's brief venture into Europe if you like. Clearly those factors were enough for the Club to get rid of him. No matter that " he avoided relegation and got us into Europe".

A really interesting read. What surprised me is how Liverpool as multiple winners across the tournaments sit below the OF and Kiev. I guess it just bears witness to how some clubs being guaranteed European football each season skews the figures. And highlights how long it takes for others to overtake them if those lower quality teams get through a few early rounds. Dukla Prague are even in there despite being disbanded and disappearing for a number of years before a local Prague club resurrected the name and progressed up the Divisions.

Great point. Seems to work perfectly well for Scandinavian clubs as several results in Europe this season confirm. Not too bad an effect on Irish Clubs either in the earlier rounds! Would be great if our lords and masters in Scotland actually looked and acted upon what would be good for Scottish football rather than blindly following others. And heaven forbid us fans get a say.

Is that when he was still Captain. I'm sure that happens at many clubs going through a bad spell. The captain calling a meeting that is.