dennyc

Walked back along Gorgie Road to Haymarket after the game as did quite a few Motherwell fans from what I saw. And had a pint in a pub yards from Tynecastle before the game. Chatted to several Hearts fans along the way and on the tram. Not a sign of bother. Not saying I have never seen confrontation over the years but Sunday appeared peaceful. I remember being pursued along *Brewery Lane" many years ago having consigned them to another year of lower league football. Happy day! Perhaps Hearts recent results had an effect on things this weekend. My experience is that all non OF fans tend to create more bother at away matches where a small number think they have a point to prove. Motherwell included. I have also been at a few non Motherwell Hearts and Hibs games in recent times and have not come across any bigoted goings on. Admittedly I have not been at any local derbies or games against either Old Firm where I guess such disgusting behaviour is more likely. To the contrary, I have not been at any Celtic or Rangers match, regardless of opponent, where religious bigotry and just plain disgusting behaviour has not been on display. So from my experience, and as someone who has lived and worked in Edinbugh since the 1980's, I don't think it is correct to class Hearts/Hibs fans in the same category as many followers of Celtic and Rangers. I say that as someone who has no time whatsoever for Hearts, going back to Texaco Cup games and having had to suffer the comments of Hearts fans throughout my working career. But I do agree with MJC. With 18000 fans cheering them on and the stands constructed the way they are, the atmosphere can be as electric and intimidating as any ground in the UK. So more credit to Motherwell on Sunday for dealing with that atmosphere and coming away with a deserved victory. And respect to the fantastic, vocal Motherwell support who made themselves heard from start to finish. That support was something a number of Hearts fans commented on post match.

I agree regards his lack of career goals and like you I have concerns about his record elsewhere. But at Tynecastle he worked his socks off, rattled every single Hearts defender, put in some thumping tackles, layed the ball off well, played countless one twos with colleagues. Still has areas to improve but a massive improvement from previous games and a performance that earned him a standing ovation when he was subbed. His team won the game and he contributed. Maybe he won't score a ton of goals or maybe he will. Time will tell. But as long as he contributes as he did on Sunday and helps the team to win, then nobody will care if the goals come from others. On Sunday's performance he deserves his chance.

Scored both goals in a 2-0 away win.

Oh I don’t want him anywhere FP. Just highlighting that most Hibs fans would welcome him back. Their other preferred choice is Malky Mackay. Media will push their own favourites though.

I think it is wise to be cautious at such an early stage in the season but to base any assessment on points gathered three games in as a means of gauging our position does not go anywhere near giving a true comparison of then and now. Under Hammell the players looked confused as to their roles and at times openly questioned tactics mid game. Hammell stubbornly refused to try any new set up…much like his predecessor…and seldom made substitutions until games were lost. Listening to his interviews was depressing as he appeared bemused and offered nothing. Much improved in all areas under Kettlewell and in fact he appears to be learning from any mistakes as Saturdays early substitution and change of shape demonstrated. He clearly has a plan and an approach which most players appear to have bought into and are enjoying. That was certainly not the case under Hammell. Or Alexander for that matter. And that 6 v 7 comparison takes no account of Kettlewell’s full track record or his previous managerial experience. My only concern is the quality of player recruited…on early evidence granted….but I would guess that there are factors other than Kettlewell’s preferences which dictate who we can bring in and who we cannot. Perhaps more so now than in previous years given the noises coming out of the Club. I’m guessing that given our ownership model that is unlikely to change. From comments here and elsewhere it seems Kettlewell is more in touch with our youth set up which is encouraging. Have to say, how telling is it that most of those posters who described Paton as a ‘waste of a jersey’ or ‘pal signing’ or ‘lazy signing’ have been remarkably silent on that subject of late. Not all, but most. Prior to his injury Paton had started to show up well and to my mind was man of the match in one game. So Saturday was not an entire surprise. Regards Neil Lennon and Hibs. We may not like him but nobody can deny he is a winner as his Managerial and Playing record shows. He is at the top of every Hibs fan I know wish list. I was at the Villa game and no way would Lennon have accepted such a performance or made no tactical changes mid match. Johnson’s after match comment that he was happy with how he set up and saw no need to change it was the last straw and an act of suicide.

So with all the professional expertise and insight the Club have at their disposal, what is your assessment of their recruitment policy so far? No cop out of " It's early days" or " Who would you bring in" or "We are skint". From what you have witnessed so far what are your first impressions? Marks out of ten if you like. Could/Should they have done better? Have they done their job well? Us fans always have thoughts about who we think might improve us as a team, but we don't employ a team of professionals, with a detailed knowledge of the market, who are paid to scour that market all year round, succession planning for the likes of KVV and Max J moving on and looking to possible injuries to key players. Where I do disagree with Steelboy is that his focus seems to be purely on Kettlewell and also there is no benefit in slaughtering players who I believe are trying their best. But as a fan he is entitled to express the concerns that he and others have. My view is that there are others within the Club who need to look at their own performance. From those charged with overseeing finance and investment, to those controlling structure and policy, to those with final say on recruitment and retention. Given the restrictions within which we are told Kettlewell has to operate, it is remarkable what he has achieved since he took over the Managerial role. How long can that last is my worry. Bottom line, initial evidence suggests our recruitment has been extremely poor but that failure does not lie solely at Kettlewell's door. The issues are much more deep rooted than that. But football being football, we will now win the Scottish Cup and finish top four.

How much is he being paid right now and by who? I thought he was released/walked away and is currently in receipt of no wages, so any employment right now would actually be an increase. Whether he would want to come to Fir Park is another matter. A deal to January might suit everyone.

I thought Souare was poor against Dundee and the run he made to open up space for our goal was just about his only positive contribution. Disappointing as he had showed up well in earlier games. Maybe because he is not up to full fitness, or perhaps team orders, but there were numerous occasions when a quick one two was on but after playing the first pass he stood still and the chance of a quick break was gone. Most passes he made were backwards even when forward options were available. And the amount of space he allowed for the cross Dundee scored from reminded me of the dark days under Alexander. I thought he was taken off because he was knackered and was being given the run around by McCowan. Which led to his booking and as suggested may well have hastened his withdrawal. Although by that criteria Slattery would never finish a match.. To me McGinley does not look up to full strength after his long illness, so I would be tempted to start Wilson even if he is the least experienced left wing back we have. Souare or McGinley facing up to Boyle is not a situation I look forward to. Early days, and Souare may come good. But for me the jury is still out. So in short, I think Steelboy does have a point although his comments are a touch harsh this early in Souare's Motherwell career.

It is a foul if an OPPONENT does that. But it is not a foul if a player from your own side knocks the ball loose, accidentally or otherwise. Essentially Casey could not foul his own goalkeeper. It is quite straight forward if you differentiate between the actions of an opponent and those of a team mate. The ball is not out of play when it is the goalkeepers hands. But an OPPONENT cannot touch him or the ball to knock it loose. That is the protection built into the laws. It really comes down to that. So a penalty could have been given against Casey or, if he had knocked the ball loose, an opponent could have knocked it into the net for a goal. There have been examples of teammates accidentally knocking the ball loose and play continuing. Whether or not it leads to a goal.

I don’t think the ball is technically out of play when it is held by the goalkeeper. However it cannot be played or touched by an opponent until the goalkeeper puts the ball on the ground or otherwise lets go of it. On the basis it was not an opponent who touched the ball, the referee could have decided it was a hand ball by Casey. However if VAR or the referee did see it, perhaps they used common sense or simply did not know what to do? So ignored it. I’m guessing the laws of the game don’t actually cover an incident like that as nobody thought of any player being daft enough to handle the ball when their own goalie is holding it. I do think that is backed up by the fact that if a defender knocks the ball loose from the hands of their own goalkeeper, the ball is playable. Whereas if an opponent knocks the ball loose it is a foul. If Casey had knocked the ball loose with his hand and the ball had rolled or been played into the net by a Dundee player, I suspect a goal would have been given. Surely a referee could not give a foul on the goalkeeper by his own player so would have no grounds for denying a goal. Whatever, I hope Casey does not risk it again. We might not be so lucky.

Will put my hands up to being wrong re those players being slated BEFORE they kicked a ball for us once you post a link to the comments you refer to, having found them from your quick search. But the fact remains each of those players had a decent history which justified their signing. That is not the case with more recent signings and questioning the rationale for those signings is something concerned fans will do....... as opposed to blindly following the club line. Slattery does receive unfair criticism but I don't recall that being the case on the day he signed, which is the point you made about him and the others.

From what I remember this is just not true. History being revised. When their signings were announced - Higdon was viewed as a big lump who had scored goals of all types for several teams....including a cracker against us for Falkirk when he turned Craigen? inside out. O'Hara was regarded as a good move on the back of his performances for Killie and Dundee. Highlighted by two superb strikes against Rangers. A goal scoring midfielder which we badly needed. Slattery was seen as a youngster...still is....with a lot of potential who was at the back of a long queue at Premier League Southampton. Highly regarded down South and someone we did well to bring to Fir Park as others had made offers. Porter had a decent record down South but had suffered injury set backs. Looked upon as a clever player who would improve players around him. A risk worth taking. Not one of them was slated before they kicked a ball for Motherwell and every one arrived with an encouraging track record on the pitch. Admittedly all of them did have detractors at some stage in their Motherwell career, and every one went on to more than prove those detractors wrong. However they were not slated before a ball was kicked. Compare the signing of those four players you highlight to some of our recent recruits, particularly taking into account our stated shortage of funds. However, I repeat, no Motherwell fan wants any signing to be a disaster and hopefully all three strikers will reach double figures this season..

Exactly this. Most folk that have concerns are questioning our recruitment policy, particularly with regard to signing strikers with an extremely poor scoring record throughout their career. Nobody realistically expects us to find a ready made replacement for KVV, but it is concerning that we have been unable to secure replacements with more encouraging track records to begin with. Does anybody disagree with that? But there is a difference between pointing out factual records and hurling abuse in the direction of anyone who does not meet your expectations. One is fair game on a football forum and the other is out of order. Sadly there are a few on here who enjoy crossing that line. Time will tell if our new strikers are up to the standard required, but I seriously doubt any Motherwell fan wants them to fail..

But “a club like ours” can afford to sign players who have scored 20 goals in a season in their career. In other words, players who have a record of scoring a decent amount of goals. Van Veen, Moult, Higdon, Sutton as examples. In some cases punts, but less of a punt than what we are currently seeing. And also developing youth talent at the same time. Given the wages dropped at season end in respect of Goss, KVV, Furlong, Johnston coupled with those moved on since, we should have had scope to sign at least one striker who has averaged more than 6 goals a season at best over the past 5 years. And that’s not even looking to any of the Van Veen transfer monies. . I would guess that’s why we employ a recruitment team. And let’s be up front, the Club knew for months that KVV was heading off so should have been forward planning. If as seems likely we end the window with the four strikers we currently have, then I fear we will require another January miracle. Happy if proven wrong, but that’s my take on things based on the on field evidence so far, admittedly only four games in. And I think you’ll find that with a squad and the options a Club like Chelsea has, many players will move on. Not because they are flops, but because they are at the back of a very long queue and need to be playing regularly to progress and reach their potential. If you are comparing Bair to Salah then that is quite a stretch.

The point you conveniently ignore is that over the past five seasons our three new strikers have scored a total of around 15 goals (Obika), 30 goals (Wilkinson) and 8 goals (Bair). So unless we see a dramatic uplift from them, we can look forward to a total contribution of 10 goals per season from our entire strike force. With a young kid who has potential but is a long way from being first team ready, and who has yet to score, as the alternative. Either that or midfielders played out of position. That is worrying and fans are justified in expressing concerns. (How they express those concerns is another matter.) I agree the players should not be written off before they get an extended chance to prove themselves and Kettlewell has also earned some leeway. You mention goals from elsewhere, so lets hope that Slattery, Spittal and a seventeen year old Miller (if he can avoid burnout) contribute at least ten goals apiece. The career history of our new recruits suggests we are going to need them. Compare those players' track records to those of Van Veen, Moult (unknowns in Scotland when they joined), Higdon and Sutton who each had enjoyed 20 goal seasons in their career before coming to us. . That downturn in the quality of strikers we are signing may well be down to finances but it only adds to the concerns that those fans not wearing blinkers are expressing. And, sorry, but it's not up to Steelboy to identify the next van Veen or Moult. That's down to our recruitment team although in fairness they may well be hamstrung by the level of wages we are prepared/able to offer. I firmly believe there are decent players out there, it is offering them a strong enough package to join us that is the problem. But let's be honest. Throughout the League Cup, the performance of our strikers has been far from the level we will require when the League season starts. Lacking in pace, disjointed as a unit, poor in the air and apparently far from reliable when presented with decent goal scoring opportunities. Early days, but that has to change. So far our midfield has carried the team but is it realistic to expect that to continue throughout an entire league season? I don't agree with a fair bit of what Steelboy comes away with....especially looking at his obsession with certain players and former staff...but he has a point in this case. Troll or not.

I have no ideas regards team selection of our opponents but strangely I find myself agreeing with Steelboy. Clearly no cause for panic, but our inability to score goals and our defending in Dumfries may well lose us a seeding in the next round. And that is likely to have a huge impact on our progress to the money making ties. Having attended every match so far I would award us pass marks because of the points gathered but no more. Performances have been adequate but no more. Yes there are reasons for that as you indicate but we will have to improve and I am sure we will. But the current squad is lacking. It was worrying for me that we started at Dumfries with the majority of those defenders that got us into the mess we were in at the start of last season. In fact, the only one that perhaps performed during that spell was rested. Kelly. And I accept that Kettlewell needs games to assess players. A different formation granted and a more tactically aware manager also a bonus. But we definitely have work to do

I don't think anyone other than you has raised the question of either of those players being regarded as bigger than the Club. And the players certainly have said or done nothing to suggest they think that way either. What most fans recognise is that both players contributed greatly to our Club and added to Motherwell FC on and off the pitch. Not that many players past and present have contributed to the extent they have. Unlike a sad, few, fickle fans on here I would be delighted if Moult rattles in 30 goals this season, no matter who he scores them for and as long as they don't contribute to a defeat for us. I think that after his run of terrible injuries he deserves some good fortune. Many less determined players would have given up by now. Credit to him for that. I don't really think he will score those goals but I wish him well. And my take on both players attempts to continue playing for us is that most fans were desperate for them to do themselves credit, but nobody was screaming out for them to get more game time when it was clear they were not fit and therefore not contributing to the team. In fact it was extremely depressing watching them try their utmost but fall short. Both were punts worth taking, but punts that did not work out. Maybe that does not suit your storyline but it is reality. But here is a question for you. Given he is only 31, and if Moult comes through the entire season injury free and scores upwards of 15 league goals for Utd would you entertain his return next season at age 32? Won't be an option of course, because if he does prove the doubters wrong, then Utd will extend his contract and he will likely be back at Fir Park wearing their colours.

Sam Campbell is one we should have high hopes for. Liverpool and Leeds were fighting over him as a sixteen year old and he did well on trial with Liverpool. A deal was said to be well advanced, with Motherwell reaching agreement with three English clubs. It was up to Sam to make a decision. Sadly, before a deal was completed he suffered a serious injury and so his progression stalled. After carefully working his way back he is once again coming to the fore. Personal choice, but I would rather he stayed in our first team squad for now rather than going out on loan. This is one player we need to be cautious with and keep under our direct control. If he is back to anywhere near his pre injury form we will be on to a winner. I am also pretty sure the likes of Liverpool will be monitoring his return. I understand he is only on a short term contract at the moment so including him in our match day/first team squad might encourage him to sign on for a bit longer. We are allowed a huge number of bench players nowadays so there is scope. In the League anyway. I would certainly rather invest in him than retain all our other centre backs, particularly as Casey has opted to return. Butcher when fit, Casey, Blaney, Campbell, Mcginn as an option, with one of Lamie, Mugabi would be my choice for that role.

If I read Ya Beezer correctly. it is not a question of bringing in players that are sure to be a success. Given our finances that is almost impossible to guarantee. Every signing is a gamble but more so when funds are tight and choices need to be made. The concern is the repeated erosion in the quality of the squad year on year. That has been going on for some considerable time. Sadly it is a fact of life and must be tough for the Board to oversee. Just compare like for like over the seasons. Eventually that erosion takes it's toll and a team ends up in the situation we were in before Kettlewell arrived. Others have experienced similar. It's inevitable even with the odd outstanding youngster coming through. To a degree we were fortunate that the real possibility of relegation was recognised by the Board who loosened the purse strings through necessity, and so the likes of Butcher and Casey were recruited to rescue the situation. Danzaki I will gloss over. KVV turning into Superman was huge as well.. That's my take on it anyway. On the plus side, other teams have had to go down that exact same route. So that has helped us keep ahead of some. Just compare St Johnstone, County and Kilmarnock's current squads with those of recent years. Even Livingstone and St Mirren have down graded year on year. Unless you have a massive fan base or a rich benefactor or both then the die is cast. And when the benefactor cuts back as per Killie and County, even that comfort is reduced. We have neither and the indications of late are that every penny is a prisoner. I have no doubt more players will be brought in before the window closes. But given that the KVV monies were quoted by the Board as " securing our mid to long term future" and given comments that players we wished to retain were offered deals elsewhere that we chose not to match, I do not anticipate we will be anywhere near the side we were at the end of last season. Cut backs in non playing staff also hint at careful financial management. Lennon Miller and Sam Campbell are youngsters with a great future but in reality it is too much to expect them to impact the team massively at this stage in their career. Unless Wilkinson can replicate KVV's contribution I fear we may well require another rescue act come January. I will be delighted if proven wrong.

There were two compensation schemes introduced after Bosman to reward teams that develop players who ultimately move on. 1. Training/ Development Fee to compensate for developing players who move on with no transfer fee. So Max Johnston. To be split between all clubs who have developed a player (Dean Cornelius - Hibs and Motherwell) and is calculated on a standard formula devised by the football authorities. When the player moves on from the parent Club there is no transfer fee. Hence the need for compensation. I think this only applies up to the season of a players 23rd birthday. 2. Solidarity Payment to reward a developing club where a player is transferred between different associations (Scotland/England/Europe) for a transfer fee. Applies at any age. 5% of the transfer Fee is set aside and dispersed amongst all previous clubs who have developed a player up to a certain age (21???) The more you dig, the more confusing it gets. Two different schemes that have similarities and which both reward teams for developing youngsters. The main differences being whether or not there is a transfer fee and whether there is an age restriction applied. My understanding re Max J is that we are due the standard training/development fee unless we negotiate a different fee with say a 20% future transfer add on. If Max does move to Sturm Graz and is later transferred outside of Austria for a fee, then we would be due a Solidarity payment deducted automatically from that transfer fee. Note that if he were transferred within Austria we would be due nothing. I would imagine that if we negotiated a 20% add on, then that Solidarity Payment potential would be superseded. That would make sense.

The Development Fee scheme was introduced to provide a guarantee that clubs who invested in youth were not left with nothing when bigger clubs came calling. But the Development Fee is really a minimum guarantee. Unless the player signs on to a team from an Association that has not yet entered the Scheme. Think Cadden to The States. Clubs can come to an agreement to dispense with the standard Development Fee and instead negotiate a reduced fee with specific add ons included. The new club benefit by paying out less up front and the former club hope that any add ons will in time generate substantially more income than the fee reduction. A future big money transfer being the jackpot. If the switch is made under the basic Development Fee arrangements, then it is a once and for all payment with no future income benefits to the former club. There are pros and cons for each club whatever way the deal is done. For example. The basic Dev Fee must be paid in full within a short period (30 days rings a bell) but any alternative deal might involve staged payments over a longer timescale. Add ons might never come to fruition (as per Jake Hastie) which is clearly a disappointment for the former club. Any add ons that come into play can substantially reduce transfer income for the new Club. Essentially it is a gamble but the financial situation of both clubs at the time the player moves will play a part.

For a minute, let's set aside the obvious off field baggage that Motherwell would inherit along with Goodwille and the turmoil that would cause. On a purely footballing basis, Fletcher is a far better option than someone who has hardly kicked a ball since January 2022. Particularly in the Country's top division. And in that same League Fletcher showed up well in every game he featured against us last season. If age is a factor as some suggest, Goodwillie is not really that much younger than Fletcher. Motherwell would be crazy to consider Goodwillie. I do suspect the suggestion was tongue in cheek. At least I hope so,

Agree with this. If we continue with the same set up Kettlewell introduced then Goss could be a great asset with the right support. Same applies to Spittal. Slattery does need to step up as I find him the most frustrating of our midfielders. I do think there is a player in there but we need more consistency and better ball retention from him. And less yellow cards. I wonder if Paton is seen as an option to Slattery. I know you don't rate him but, given his time out of the game, maybe with a proper pre season and regular game time he will prove you and others wrong. I think it is far to early to make an assessment and clearly Kettlewell trusts him to contribute. Remember also that Butcher was signed as a midfielder although his performances as an emergency centre back suggest he might stay there when fit. But Butcher remains a midfield option if we can afford to release him forward. I do think the potential is there for us to have a very strong midfield but that depends on what happens at wing back and central defence. My biggest concern is up front where we just simply have to find a natural goal scorer. Not easy, but essential as none of squad we are left with fits that bill. Four top signings could turn us into a really good team if we can retain Goss and Casey. And dare I say it, an attractive team to watch. Otherwise it's yet another massive rebuild.

That’s not what I took from Wee Yins comment. I understood he meant any potential Scottish buyer would have to pay a premium as we would be reluctant to sell to a league rival. Reluctant but not unrealistic or stupid. So in your example we would certainly be willing to accept the £1m. £500k plus add ons for a 32 year, who has had one exceptional season and entering the final year of his contract is hardly a bad deal. I wish him well if he does move on.

We don't know what his personal situation is or what his ties to the Newcastle area are. Maybe there are other, possibly external, factors which explain his acceptance of being fourth choice. Maybe he is simply looking to his long term future and getting heavily involved in coaching, gaining Uefa coaching badges, supported by Newcastle FC. Maybe he needs to be close to home for personal reasons. Maybe he is just enjoying football life in whatever role he has. We simply don't know. Whatever, he has chosen to sign on on for another year. I have no doubt he could easily be a first choice at some other team if that was a route he wanted to go down.