dennyc

He was one of the main reasons we lost as was also the case on Saturday . I do agree though regarding playing him on the left. But then we have a Manager who opts to disrupt the entire team when the first choice left back is out, rather than give a chance to a natural left sided reserve at full back. Different if Tait had actually performed to any sort of decent level throughout pre season or in any competitive game so far. But he hasn’t. Not even in his proper position. His poor form from the last few months of last season has continued. For whatever reason, he is not the same player as he was 18 months ago. Injury? Confidence? Livingstone might not be the answer , but we will never know unless he is given a proper chance, even if it is only through injury or suspension. He performed better than either of tonight’s full backs in what limited playing time he was given in pre season. Certainly provided more going forward than Tait and actually went beyond Hylton....something Tait now seems reluctant to do. What was the point in giving Livingstone a new contract if the Manager does not trust him or believe he is up to it? As for those long diagonal passes. It’s soul destroying. How many have we seen fired over the winger’s head and out of play ? But it’s not only Dunne. Every defender and midfielder tries the same thing. Maybe we should be asking questions of the person that is instructing them to play that way. It’s not unplanned. Maybe somebody should point out that you can actually pass the ball on the ground to the wide players.

That stuff shows clearly how the Panel operates and comes together....as well as highlighting that the panel can more or less come to whatever decision they like irrespective of evidence or even lack of evidence.......without having to give an explanation. But unless I missed it (which is entirely possible) it does not clarify exactly how possible offences can be brought to the Compliance Officer's attention. It must only come either from TV Highlights or a referee supervisors report. My bet is Trial by Television. Or can I or any other fan ask them to look at the next assault by Brown or Christie? I guess not. The whole thing is random and inconsistent. I can just see the BBC editor opting out of showing certain incidents in case it hurts his own team. whoever that is. And it's a great point about lower league matches with no TV coverage. I would imagine most folk would settle for the referee's decision being final, but that opens up a debate about erroneous red Cards being overturned. Can't have it both ways I suppose.

Most folk are not saying it was the artificial pitch that made us play badly. It was the tactics we persisted with for most of the game that were the problem. To play on that particular surface the way it was prepared for Saturday you had to forget about trying to play free flowing football through midfield. The quote from The Herald was spot on. We should have learned our lesson from last season's league match there. in the circumstances a draw was not a poor result but if we had adapted better I think we could have won.

I think Raith Rovers also went down the artificial route this season and can be added to the list

Reading some of the comments on here you would think we had been bullied all day long. Livingston were just not that physical...that's a myth based on history and the players they had last season, many of which have moved on. In fact, there is a strong case for saying that Gallagher was the most physical player on show, closely followed by Lithgow of Livingston. Also Carroll was responsible for the only violent tackle in the whole match. So, no, Livingston were not overly physical. They were just smarter. Aberdeen and Hearts will be much more of a physical challenge. What Livingston did do was play a style suited to that dreadful pitch. Rarely running with the ball, clearing their lines with no farting around in defence and getting the ball into our box as quickly as possible, often by way of set pieces, throw ins and goalkeeper clearances. Horrible to watch but depressingly effective. Any attractive football they did try to play only happened around our penalty area. On the other hand, we stuck to our usual attractive game plan....passing ,probing and driving forward with the ball... which was ineffective on that surface, with our wingers struggling to make an impact. We did not need to be more physical, we just needed to adapt our style to counter the conditions. There is no need to bring in more physical players, the existing ones just need to be a little more aware of what works and what doesn't on a game to game basis.

That Livingston team were nowhere near as physical as they were last year. Think back to the league defeat (2-0?) early last season. Only Lithgow at the back and Dykes playing up front were up to that standard. Not so surprising really with Halkett, Gallagher and Menga moving on. Players such as Dunne and the same Gallagher dealt fine with the physical challenge in defence but I accept Scott did find it tough going up front against Lithgow. But players such as McMillan and Devine are certainly no more physical than the likes of Campbell and Tait. And to say our lack of physicality was the reason for not winning is way off the mark. Particularly in midfield. I put that down to players repeatedly making the crazy decision to try and run with the ball on a pitch that made that tactic virtually impossible. Illic, Campbell, Donnelly, Hylton and others won the ball in midfield then found it stuck between their feet as they tried to move forward, enabling lightweight players like Lawless and Souda to touch the ball away. Or fall down and claim a free kick. And although Barclay was strong on the ball, I would not rate him as overly physical, or Sibbald when he came on. Even though Seedorf did better the same problem happened once or twice. Same with Cole and Long. Running with the ball just did not work. After the first 10 minutes, most chances we created either came from long passes, set pieces. And getting in early crosses. Gallagher could/should have scored at least twice late on when we actually put the ball into the box. in short (in my opinion) we got our tactics wrong. And refused to change them. Much as it makes the eyes bleed, Livingston got their approach spot on given that surface. Lump the ball forward at every opportunity bypassing midfield wherever possible. Take no risks in defence. No passing the ball back and forward across the back line. Play the game in the opponents box. The exact opposite of the style we are set up to play. Even their throw ins followed that rule in the hope of winning the second ball. Passing back to their goalkeeper from half way so he to could plant the ball on our penalty spot. We have better football players than Livingston and our Manager clearly thought that superior ability would win the day. In the end, we have Gillespie to thank for escaping with a point. I’m not advocating Hoofball, far from it. I detest it. Watching it at Fir Park was soul destroying. But on that Livingston pitch is their really any other option for a team with our quality of players? Let’s keep the silky skills for surfaces that allow our talented players to strut their stuff. Vary our approach taking into account all circumstances....or at least change something mid match that isn’t working. Meantime a point away to Livingston is not a disaster or a reason for dismantling the side.

Spot on. It's the way the system can work and if a team can operate it to their advantage then good luck to them. Celtic purchased a player with potential for future resale at a profit who was not quite ready for their first team but could continue to progress elsewhere. Very forward thinking. St Mirren gained as outlined. Win Win. All of us would have been turning cartwheels (or trying to) if Norwich or anybody else had signed Turnbull for £3m and then loaned him back to us for the season. That would have been viewed as great business. A coup no less. So well done St Mirren. Clubs are entitled to expoit the rules if it benefits them. Motherwell certainly do so

Have you heard if he has been registered? Taken to Gibraltar and played in most pre season games so far. But not on Bench even with Candelas left at home. Not registered so cannot play?

Anybody know if we have agreed a fee with a Rangers re Hastie? I see he is listed in their Europa squad and in Gibraltar, but not playing or on bench. Registration in course maybe? Either after agreement or Tribunal bound. The cash might be helpful this window.

The games I saw him he mostly ended up playing one twos with Kerr the Centre Back and he hardly crossed the half way line. Maybe in the Toulon Tournament when our tactics seemed to be to lump the ball forward to the big striker from Everton? Certainly it was not the energetic Campbell I see playing for and driving Motherwell forward. He could have been played as you say in other games but either way it’s certainly not playing to his strengths. Stifled is the way I see it.

I believe that the manner in which coaches like Scott Gemmill stifle the natural talent of players in matches is as much to blame for poor results as anything. Players seldom play to the same standard we see week in week out at Club level. Why not? Watching Alan Campbell...and before that Chris Cadden.. playing for Scotland, it’s like they are playing with the brakes on. Campbell is so deep he might as well be playing at Centre Back. Gemmill and the rest are more focused on frustrating the opposition than playing to the skills of our own youngsters. The fear of losing is the driver. Hard for players to give of their best and progress at International level when the coaches are totally negative. Flair Players like Middleton of Rangers and Johnstone of Celtic must be relieved to get back to their Clubs. There are others. Even the girlies team seem scared to express themselves as Shelley Kerr takes the same approach into games. Following the party line. Hopefully Clarke will change our approach, but I doubt it. I genuinely believe there is good young talent out there. Throughout the Divisions. Perhaps more so than ten years ago. And they are ambitious and confident. Norwich are about to sign an 18 year old midfielder from Partick Thistle for £350k. Perhaps that answers your Clyde/Nevin or Dumbarton/ Phillibin question. Time will tell.

But is there a dearth of young Scottish talent? Plenty of promising youngsters around, and getting game time in the SPL. Kerr at Saint Johnstone, McKenna is still young, Turnbull, Campbell , several at Celtic, Rangers (including Hastie), Hibs and Hearts. And I'm sure fans of most clubs could come up with their own young hopefuls. Plenty of folk think the lack of success at National level might be more about who is managing those teams coupled with the whole antiquated SFA set up and it's old boys network. Rather than lack of raw talent. Billy Gimour, Ryan Gauld and David Bates are three scottish youngsters who fairly recently showed plenty of self belief in moving to England, Portugal and Germany respectively. If I recall correctly there were plenty of folk questioning why those youngsters were intent on leaving Scotland at such a young age. Can't have it both ways. The talent is out there.

i do get the impression that there are fewer Scottish players heading South in comparison to years past. Certainly first team players. You suggest it is down to lack of ambition or confidence but I think it is mostly down to lack of opportunity and factors in England and Europe that have dramatically changed over the past 30 years. You quote Nicholl. Gray, Nevin etc as examples but in those days there were far fewer foreign Owners/Managers/Coaches/Recruitment Staff in England with a vast knowledge of the market in Europe and even further afield. And a lot more with a working knowledge of the Scottish and Irish markets and little knowledge of European Leagues. Plus there was much less cash flying around (No Sky billions). Put those factors together and it is no real surprise that many English Clubs....even in lower leagues..... nowadays recruit extensively from overseas, Also add increasing media coverage of European /US football andInternational tournaments such as African Cup of Nations, World and European Under 19s. 20s etc etc bringing many more players into the transfer mix. These players often have a much higher profile than good Scottish players who play for a team other than Celtic and possibly Rangers. in short it is a much wider market place. I do think there is still a market in England for players from Scottish Clubs, but nowadays the focus has changed to youngsters such as McKinstray or foreign imports such as Virgil Van Dijk who have proved themselves on the European stage. Lindsay at Barnsley, Cooper at Leeds and Fraser at Bournemouth are examples of players, who when given the opportunity as youngsters were ambitious and confident enough to head South. Turnbull opted not to. I am sure many others would also make that move, given the opportunity and personal circumstances permitting. I don't think the lack of players heading to England is about either ambition or confidence.

Possibly more about being closer to home. Clearly it was not all about cash either. He weighed up what he wanted and chose Celtic. That’s his right. Anyway, hope all goes well with his surgery. That’s far more important than any hang up over who he chose.

This 100%. Well said that man. Hopefully in a year or so David Turnbull will look at this whole affair and think “ You know what, this has worked out for the best for both me and Motherwell”. As he has his big move and reflects on the fact that an early intervention may have prolonged his career. Meantime, try and stay positive David.

Yeah Celtic are experts at releasing info when it suits to appease their fans. I take any fee they quote with a pinch of salt, just like their attendance figures. Masters of the art of deceit are Celtic. Some fees are inflated to include the wages that they are paying during the new contract. . Along the lines of today’s BBC news “ signing XXX at a cost of £8m”. Whereas the transfer fee might be £5m with wages and possible add ons taken it up to the £8m. But it sounds great to their fans if they are buying a player costing £8m and shows they are not stashing cash away. A check of the fee quoted by the overseas selling club can be quite revealing. I don’t trust a word that comes out of Celtic Park.

New owners with big ideas. And Cash. As I posted earlier, those owners watched on as Shankland tore them to shreds last season at Tannadice. Their approach is no surprise. A striker that scores goals in that Division.

He’s our player. Bring him back so we can assess this “out of the blue” knee injury. I’m guessing our medical team are as surprised as we are. If he needs treatment, so be it. We can attend to that. If he is ok, then he is missing valuable pre season training and getting to know our new players. Or Celtic can stump up what was agreed. What’s the alternative? Agree some half arsed reduced terms deal with additional to be paid when he has played 50 and then 100 games? Cue sell on at 49 or 99 games with or possibly without a sell on fee. No thanks. Plenty of time left in this window. If Celtic really want him they will come back, now or when he proves his fitness. He is a commodity they want for future gain. And another good season for him and others will be interested. We are in the position of strength here. We should not roll over and give away our best asset in a rush of panic. Or are we that desperate for the cash? We have done our best for Turnbull in this window but maybe it’s not to be for him.... this time. We have clearly demonstrated we will let him go to advance his career, but it must be on our terms.

I don’t know if Shankland would make the step up or not. There is always a risk. But last season I watched him run Dundee Utd ragged at Tannadice in a game where they could not cope with his pace and movement. And I think he scored four? Only one game admittedly but he impressed me. And it’s no coincidence that Ayr fell away when he got injured and missed lots of game time. He is a goal scorer. I don’t think he would be any more of a gamble than someone from non league down south. Like Robinson and Blyth who were tragic in how useless they turned out. Or some of the rehab projects we in indulge in. Like Taylor-Sinclair

100%.

Nothing to do with jets. Just a perfectly valid question. 15% is excellent. I’ll take it you know that for a fact so I’m delighted with the overall package.

That is my concern. Celtic have an operating model and sell ons are not usually part of that. Until someone from MFC confirms that we have some sort of sell on ( even if the exact % figure is a state secret) I will seriously doubt one exists. Time will tell I guess. The Herald and the Sun mentioned “a substantial sell on” as part of the Norwich offer. Might have missed it, but I have seen no such mention regarding any Celtic offer. And the Club were quick enough to tell us of sell on clauses for the likes of Marvin Johnson and.... I think....Cedric Kipre. I still think £3m is a great return for Turnbull though.

Serious question. What is the sell on %? Said before a good deal could become a great deal if a decent sell on.

Plenty of game time for him at Celtic as Mcgregor off to Leicester and NtCham heading back to France. Giving Celtic a net profit of around £27m. Great business by them and they can also stash a bundle in the old biscuit tin. I actually think it’s a great move for Turnbull and wish him every success. He deserves it for what he has done for our wee Club. Still hurts though and Norwich would have been better. But it’s his choice and he will have valid reasons. On a different matter and from several comments on here, it’s hilarious to see Hastie already written off as never going to feature for Rangers. Well thought of by Gerrard so don’t take it for granted that he will automatically be loaned out. All depends on how he performs in pre season. Unlike Middleton, who was loaned out last week, I gather he is joining Rangers on their pre season trip to Germany. Once registered of course. Also depends on what happens with Kent. Both players had life changing decisions to make and although they chose different routes, good luck to them both. £3.5m or so brought in over a period of weeks from our Youth Academy. That’s the real story. Could never have dreamt of that 10 months ago. Next batch please!

I might have missed it, but has anyone suggested doubling our player Budget? If so apologies . A modest increase in an attempt to improve quality in a non Turnbull side is what I have read proposed. Not Boyle type extravagance. And much of the expenditure you outline should already be included in existing Budgets... such as our annual pitch renewal. By all means carefully improve maintenance Budget as well but please let’s not ignore the playing side ....within reason. Without the Turnbull and Hastie rescue act this season we were in the shit. Let’s not get back to that level because we solely increase our infrastructure expenditure. There is scope for both if correctly managed. And I’m sure that’s what Alan Burrows suggested.