dennyc

Did Celtic pay for the seat damage at Fir Park? I understand they did and that it was common practice for Clubs to pay for ground damage caused by their fans. Certainly plenty of talk about damage caused by fans hurting their own Club financially. But No, I don't have a copy of any receipts. Well done on deflecting from the behaviour of the fans though.

Ah, I understand now. Better nobody comment on the shameful behaviour of a minority of fans at away matches. Self policed or not. Poor wee souls are only having a good day out. Fair enough. I guess the same applies to those Celtic fans who delight in defacing Fir Park. The hands off approach you appear to support might just be part of the problem.

No Agenda whatsoever. Have you heard the Club speaking out about the behaviour of some fans at away games? If so i stand corrected. Do you think that behaviour is acceptable or reflects well on Motherwell? I'm commenting on incidents I have witnessed personally, including a female fan at Ross County being threatened with violence. Or is that just high jinx and therefore ok?

As one of those retired fellows who made the trip up to Dingwall for a midweek game last season, I personally saw a large group of non retired fellows spend most of the match abusing stewards, spilling onto the trackside and threatening any Motherwell fan who questioned them. If that behaviour contributed to the decision to place the fans where they did this week then why are we surprised? In truth St Mirren and Kilmarnock would be well within their rights to adopt the same approach following incidents this season, including flare damage to the pitch. Might help if Motherwell themselves publicly condemned some of the goings on rather than just paying for any damage and appearing to turn a blind eye.

The point that is being ignored by the blinkered is that it is not just football that is/was cancelled, in Scotland or elsewhere. It is not some royalist, SFA, police supported attack on the common Scottish man as some suggest. As for this weekend, if the Police are required elsewhere then sport will have to take a back seat for another few days. It is not the end of the world. I would imagine all sporting authorities are trying their utmost to ensure as much sport as possible takes place over the next week or so. But it is not within their control. The Country wanted to pay their respects. And that included many Scots as the queues in Edinburgh today show. Police resources are spread thin. As a non Royalist that does not include me. but I respect and accept that the majority of the UK population wishes to do so, annoying and disruptive as that may be.

All they have done is cover themselves in case the situation changes and the police end up short staffed. So taking their statement apart word by word is pointless. We all know what is being suggested without needing a Dummies Guide To How Football Games Are Staged. And I did not say the police asked for our games to be postponed. So let’s not push that angle. I suspect games all over were postponed as a mark of respect. And quite rightly so. Now each event is being looked at on an individual basis. As per London on Sunday. I wonder if this debate would be taking place if there was no Royal connection.

Nonsense. The football authorities have no power to override IF the police decide to cancel games because of staffing concerns. So their leadership is not in question over this issue. Those sporting events you mentioned went ahead after police approval and after earlier postponements. And they would not have gone ahead if the police could not have provided the security required because their officers were required elsewhere. As in Edinburgh yesterday had the Hearts game remained scheduled. Police called in an extra 1000 officers from all over to deal with events yesterday. Cricket matches, football matches, girlies championship boxing, golf tournaments and horse racing were cancelled in England/Wales on Friday and the weekend as a mark of respect. Just as happened with our game at Dingwall. So to suggest other sports not governed by the SFA were not cancelled is just not true. Our lords and masters have history as you suggest, but to use this situation as a means to have a go at them is wrong. And as I type, Premier League games in England on Sunday are cancelled or kick off times moved because of pressure on Police numbers given other events being planned for in London. Given your comments I guess that makes the English football authorities as weak as our lot.

So really no different to how it is for every game right across the UK. The Police have the right to veto any game should circumstances warrant. That'll be why they are involved in pre planning for all games then. Take yesterday as an example. Hearts were due to be at home to St Mirren. Would the police have been wrong to cancel that game had it still been scheduled, given extensive road closures and huge numbers lining the streets as the Cortege passed through? An event affecting the entire East of Scotland and the main access route to Edinburgh. I really think folk are looking for reasons to have a go. And how often in reality to the Police actually request a game be rescheduled? Mountains and molehills

Rugby

Do you really think a Royal somebody contacted the SFA and instructed them to cancel all football because it would keep the peasants in their place? If so then you are either deluded or obsessed. Given you now want to use the situation to have a go at the Scottish Government suggests it is the latter. I'm just surprised it is not all Burrow's fault. Or is that your next rant? Each sporting/entertainment organisation was left to make up their own mind regarding whether to cancel or not. Some chose to restart on Saturday/Sunday and some did not. I suspect football authorities up here were concerned that some fans (particularly of a certain Glasgow team) would shame the sport and Scotland by disrupting any planned minute's show of respect. So if you want to blame anyone for games being cancelled, blame the SFA and the cretins attached to every Club, including ours, who force them to be ultra cautious. For the record, I am far from a Royalist and am disappointed I will not be heading up to Dingwall tomorrow. But I can understand why that is the case. Just read the Proms have been cancelled completely for this year. How does that fit in with your opinion that postponements are a class thing?

When fixtures start up again there may be a minute's silence anyway. So those elements you highlight could still express their views. I suppose some Clubs could opt out if they felt it wise to do so.

And then we are no worse off than we were at midnight last night. Shields etc would have to step up for a couple of weeks. But any player we sign could get injured in training. In fact we have history in that respect. Very recent history. It's up to Hammell to have a plan for that situation. You never know, he might even have a free agent in mind as another addition. But Moult had to be taken on now because of the transfer window regulations. I think you are looking for the possible negatives rather than looking at the possible benefits. For me the potential benefits vastly outweigh the possible negatives and this was a loan signing worth trying. If you think otherwise so be it.

And if he gets (or is) crocked he can return to Burton. If it works out we have made the deal of the window. On and off the pitch possibly At no risk. I can think of some we signed up that were only at Fir Park to top up there pension fund. Ciftci, McCormack spring to mind. How fit were they? How much did they milk us for? I might be wrong but I don't imagine Moult falls into that category. Hopefully it works out. If not no harm done.

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.