Jay

Didn't reply to your question about the Well Society being consulted earlier mate as it's something the Society might be addressing as a whole soon, as it's a question that's been asked a few times. As for my first meeting, I'm pleased - and perhaps surprised - to say I'm quietly optimistic moving forward. A lot of hard work ahead but I have come away a lot more positive about the Society than I expected to be. I still have my issues obviously and a list of constructive criticisms to put forward (along with ideas to try rectify things) but, rather than coming away feeling it's all a lost cause as I perhaps might have a few months ago, I'm actually feeling a bit enthusiastic about putting a shift in to try and get things improved. I will still find time to slate them/us on the podcast if required though, no doubt...

There's always the risk that might be the case - I work in politics so I know fine well how these things can often play out! But you're right - at the very least, I want to try and use my time with the Well Society to at least attempt to provide a bit of transparency and honesty where there's been none before. Basically, if I'm not going to be able to get the answers people want, I hope I can at least use the opportunity to get them the answers in the first place.

Cheers mate, Certainly happy to get an answer for you. Need to be honest and say that this week's events make me think tonight might not be where I get most answers & raise the majority of issues I have, simply because things have naturally changed over the last couple of days and will need discussed, but I'll be making sure to do so moving forward. In particular, questions like yours that deserve an answer, I can put forward without having to be at a monthly meeting anyway, so I'll give you a shout when I have some feedback for you. Cheers mate. We'll see how it pans out. Happy to try in the hope that we can all move forward together but if I'm a lone voice then so be it!

Cheers mate!

Well Society meeting debut tonight - probably not in the circumstances I was expecting right enough, safe to say the meeting itself probably has a completely different complexion now. But in the coming months, I'll be looking to raise the issues, voice the concerns, tout the ideas & ask the questions I've been prattling on about on the podcast & social media for a couple of years now. A vast lack of transparency is my number one criticism of the Society and I'm hoping to make some sort of progress in the new few months in getting that across to my fellow Board members and hopefully working together towards rectifying it. Also looking to add to my own criticisms with the issues, concerns, ideas, & questions of other ordinary punters like myself. If anyone wants to add to the ever-increasing scribblings in my newly dedicated notepad with "Well Society" written on the front, feel free to get in touch. Trying to be more active on here, but I'm also easy to get in touch with on Twitter at @jay_mfc Anyway, if anyone is planning on coming along at 7.30pm (the Well Society has invited anyone interested in helping out along after tonight's Board meeting) then I'll see you there.

I find that article just a bizarre thing for Duffy to write. If he's against the idea of fan-ownership as a whole, then fair enough - plenty are. But I don't recall him ever saying as much in the past. So to claim suddenly that "fans in the board room" is wrong because Mark McGhee got the sack just seems to suggest it's a case of either the Managers Union from Duffy, or he was just struggling for something to focus on in this week's column. Additionally, it seems daft to start the article claiming supporters shouldn't be involved because it leads to "emotion and passion" being involved in decisions that require logic - therefore suggesting sacking McGhee was an incorrect decision, the result of fan involvement - and then go on to say the writing was on the wall and the decision was expected. Quite a disappointing article given he seemed a pretty decent candidate for the job in my opinion. He seems to have attempted to write something he doesn't really have any clue about, and has ended up just producing a pretty strange, misguided rant as a result. I retract my post from last night touting him for the job!

Now that McGhee is away, I think I'm settling more on Jim Duffy as my shout. It's someone I would have associated with the old manager's merry-go-round in previous years and would never have foreseen a day I'd be hoping for him at Fir Park, but I tend to agree with those touting him as an ideal candidate at this stage. Not only has he done a fantastic recent job with Morton, and Clyde beforehand, suggesting he could be a good option in the long-term, but he also has the experience to get us out of the shite in the short-term. I know there's some doubts over whether we'd pay compensation for a gaffer already at a club, and I think there's even question marks over whether he'd take the job given he's got a good gig going at Morton with sidelines in the Sun and on Clyde One, but from the names being banded about today, particularly those who are being strongly linked early on, I'm favouring Duffy.

Motherwell Football Club has today (Tuesday) parted company with manager Mark McGhee. The decision, taken by the Board following consultation with the ‘Well Society, comes after a disappointing run of results, culminating in Saturday’s loss at home to Dundee. Stephen Robinson, flanked by assistant James McFadden and Under 20s boss Stephen Craigan, has agreed to take temporary charge whilst a new permanent manager is recruited as swiftly as possible. The club wishes to thank Mark for his work during his second spell at Fir Park, particularly getting the club into the top-six during the 2015/16 season and wish him every success in the future.

The time was always going to come - hopefully we can get in there before the Scottish FA...

Agreed mate.

Van der Gaag I presume mate, he was in the running when we appointed Baraclough. Took Maritimo into Europe and won promotion with Belenenses. Not sure where he is now though.

In the midst of my response, Baraclough did spring to mind sadly... In an ideal world where we could give a young manager time, I think Simo could work out to be a good appointment. However, as you rightly say, we're in a situation where a new gaffer isn't going to have the time or the resources to have a proper crack at things in the long-term, without being able to sort out the short-term first. As I said, there'll undoubtedly be candidates mentioned who I think are better placed for the job than Simo - Jim Duffy is certainly one although I'm not sure if he's even at a stage in his managerial career now where he'd be particularly bothered about leaving Morton for Motherwell. It's nice to discuss who the new manager could be though, as it makes you momentarily forget that McGhee is still at Fir Park...

No, I have no doubt you're right that if he hadn't played for Motherwell folk probably wouldn't be shouting for a Finnish title winning manager, but I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing or a reason to dismiss his credentials. It's not as though we're talking about giving it to Faddy purely because he's a 'Well legend, unlike someone like that Simo has experienced success as a manager. The fact he is a former-player is an ingredient when folk tout him - I think anyone who claims otherwise is at it - but I don't really have an issue with that. I also think it's worth remembering that people are naming him because he applied for the job last time around too. He's a highly rated manager in Finland who only left the club because of a breakdown in relationship with the chairman regarding control over transfers. He has former experience as a youth coach so has worked with younger players, and has won the league title, League Cup, and Finnish Cup at SJK. I'm not suggesting that it's the best track record going, or he has achieved stunning world success winning trophies in Finland, and there very well might be candidates for the job with a far greater wealth of achievements and experience who I might prefer when McGhee moves on and names start being linked, but I do think what he's achieved so far in his short career makes him a decent enough candidate.

Fingers crossed.

I wouldn't necessarily say fuck all, his track record in management at a decent level so far has been good. I'm not going to lie and pretend there isn't obviously the added "former player bias" involved, but it's far from the only reason. He's a young manager who has connections with the club, would love to take the job, and boasts a good track record and some really good success in his short managerial career so far. Certainly not everyone's cup of tea, but from the candidates named last time around I would be happy with him. That said, the football landscape is entirely different now than it was when we appointed McGhee, so there will no doubt be other names linked this time around that would be worth considering. I'd also be more than happy to be considering moving for Jim Duffy given the great job he's done at Morton, which isn't a name I thought I'd be touting a few years back.

I've never been McGhee's biggest fan but I was content to keep him at the club prior to Pittodrie. The defeat up there was the turning point for me. The scenes yesterday confirmed that his time is up - once those sorts of chants and protests begin, you just don't come back from that. I would like to think we would be considering removing him from his position but I tend to agree that it might not be likely until the summer. As a replacement, I tend to agree with Mitch. I was a fan of the idea of bringing in Simo when we instead gave it to McGhee. Now that Simo has left his Finnish club and is available without compensation having to be paid, I would be more than happy for us to be looking at bringing him in soon.

Always look forward to Killie Away as got a good few Kilmarnock supporting mates so it's always a good day. Already let them know in advance that they're on to three points on Saturday. McHugh has to play in the back four for me. I think it was clear that, without McManus, we had nobody at the back communicating and organising. Even after conceding goals, not one defender looked interested or confident enough to have a go at a team mate or show some sort of emotion that we had lost another shite goal, it was a reluctant acceptance that we were on to an absolute doing, and that's not good enough. As for the rest of the team, I'm really not sure. Pearson didn't look interested, Cadden looks like he could maybe do with a rest and isn't providing the spark he can as a result, and the central midfield options are as much of a muchness. I'd be inclined to agree that maybe Saturday could be a game to throw Campbell in there - I don't know what the lad's mentality is like, and you have to be cautious in these situations that you don't ruin a young guy's mind set by throwing him into a team that's got the potential to lose 6 or 7 nothing, but if he's got his head screwed on, then maybe a bit of youthful enthusiasm might actually be what we need. But aye, looking forward to the day, the 90 minutes not so much. 3-1 Killie.

Can't disagree with any of this. I, like the majority, am very much in the "McGhee Out" camp and I think yesterday made it clear that the 'Well support is now mostly united in that call. Not only was it blatantly clear to anyone who was at the game, because of things like the mass walk out and the chanting, but it also received coverage online and on the radio as a result. You don't really tend to get anything like that when it's a boycott involved - you'd imagine there'd be very few journalists even bothered to mention that Motherwell fans were boycotting their games. I think if folk want to make a statement, then organising protests or displays are often the way forward, particularly in modern football where such things end up getting a lot of exposure on social media and in the press. Like a few of the folk posting, I'm not a fan of boycotting. Harming the club in that way, no matter how much you want a change, is short-term thinking which can do long-term damage. I'd far rather the support continued to make its feelings known without deliberately trying to damage the club financially. I notice above someone has said that maybe the threat of losing money might be the one thing that guarantees a change but it's also worth pointing out that it doesn't require a boycott to threaten the club in that way. The Well Society continues to rely on monthly payments and donations from the Motherwell support, particularly this year due to Les's "Double Your Money" offer. Fans respond to what is going on on the park - if Motherwell are playing well, the support is proud of their team, and there's a feel good factor, then the fans are more likely to respond to Well Society membership and fundraising. When the performances are dire, the atmosphere is poisonous, the manager is public enemy number one, and relegation actually looks like it could be on the cards, there's far less chance of folk having the motivation and enthusiasm to put money in through the Well Society. So boycott or not, Mark McGhee remaining at Fir Park will still threaten the ability of the club/Society to generate finances. With that in mind, I'd prefer to see fans engaging in protests and other creative ways to get their point across, without further trying to damage the finances.

My MFC Podcast blazer & tie means I don't need to bother with the WS one mate...

"After a difficult week at Fir Park, Sparra, Busta and Jay were joined by Herald and Times sportswriter Graeme McGarry. On the agenda was defeats to Aberdeen and Celtic, Mark McGhee’s future, a look ahead to the weekend’s meeting with Dundee and Steven Robinson’s return to the club." http://www.mfc1886.com/mfc-podcast-2016-17-episode-25/

Although we are always defensive at Celtic Park, usually trying to keep it tight and hope we can nick a goal, I think tomorrow could be ultra backs to the wall as McGhee sets us out for a purely damage limitation job. He's been over-the-top defensive in his team selection and line-ups at the best of times this season, never mind for a visit to Celtic Park a few days after conceding seven at Pittodrie. Unfortunately, on the back of the Aberdeen game, I think we're in a situation where any defeat by three goals or less will be considered a small victory. To be fair, given my last visit to Celtic Park was 7-0 last season and I'm going tomorrow, a defeat by three goals or less might be considered a small victory by me too... But aye, I expect us to basically spend 90 minutes just trying to stop Celtic from scoring, with very little thought about much more than that, and we'll end up losing by about 4 or 5.

Noted. Agree on the maximising comments too. The gesture from Les is obviously great news but the ball is now in the Well Society's court to ensure fundraising is at the highest level possible in 2017.

Absolutely. Today there were factors outwith his control, so it would be unfair to base anything solely on today's game, but over his 2nd spell as a whole there is no getting away from the fact he seems obsessed with the opposition IMO. To be perfectly honest, Mark McGhee has completely shat it on numerous occasions before a ball has even been kicked. I cannot be the only 'Well fan who has woken up on a Saturday optimistic and excited, then found that positivity drained at 2pm when the team is announced. The inevitable defeat is then not a surprise. We have some very good attacking players and, on our day, we are capable of playing some very good attacking football, scoring goals, and beating teams. Yet all of that seems so far down the priority list to McGhee. Instead, the main - and, it seems, at times only - concern is how to stop the opposition. And in the majority of cases we end up losing the game, usually going behind and being far too negative and impotent in attack to respond. What makes it even more baffling is that this is the same man who, at Fir Park in his 1st spell, made us into one of the most exciting and energetic attacking sides in the country. I've heard it argued that we don't have the players for that this time around but his sides of around 2007 often had, for example, Steven McGarry in them who, despite being a decent enough player, was hardly different class. It's almost as though he has went from one extreme to the other in ten years.

Well pre-match I was thinking about two main points - firstly, that Dingwall midweek saw a good, solid team performance that resulted in a victory. Secondly, I personally think that our blatant inconsistency this season - both in terms of performances and results - is, at least in some small way, related to the complete inconsistency in team selection, where our line-up often changes every match and we don't seem to have anything close to a settled side. Therefore, I quite liked the idea of going into today's game trying to keep as close a line-up to that of Dingwall - obviously with a slight reshuffle to tackle McDonald's suspension, and obviously taking a few measures to counter specific threats. However, as I've said above, McGhee's line-up could very well have ended up working had there not been any sending off.

I'm really not a fan of using still images of a slide tackle to justify a decision one way or another (not saying you're doing so by the way, but it's something I've seen on Twitter and Facebook). We are now in the age of "trial by Sportscene" where a good challenge, that involved a follow through due to momentum, can be made to look far, far worse than it ever was by photographs and slow motion replays. I reckon if you looked through the photographs of fair slide tackles from most matches, you could devise an alternative match report in which there were numerous sending offs. Consider a player winning a header and then falling onto the opponent, or when a player kicks the opponent's studs because they were later in the challenge. Those kinds of events during a game pass without anyone taking much notice, yet photograph them and you could claim it was malicious or dangerous. For me, it's not a red card. Football often involves momentum, and momentum often involves someone getting a sore one accidentally. It is simply not possible for McHugh to have made the challenge - a challenge he won and was entitled to go for - without being in the position shown in that image. Yes, Cowie is unfortunate to have bore the brunt of the follow through, but that doesn't mean it has to be a foul, yellow card, or red card. I don't think McHugh was out of control or reckless at all, which seems to be why it could be interpreted as a red card. If folk disagree because of the challenge itself, then that's fine - it's all about opinions. But when photographs like the above are used as genuine justification for a sending off, I think it starts to become a problem because it paints a picture that is plainly untrue. As for the game, I wasn't really a fan of the line-up pre-match but I don't think McGhee can be blamed for the overall outcome of the match. The line-up itself may have worked had McHugh stayed on the field so I think any criticism of McGhee in terms of his approach - which I did pre-match - is based purely on speculation. When you factor in that the first goal was a wicked deflection, today's defeat was more to do with factors outwith McGhee's control than anything else.