weeyin

Be funny when Malpas is introduced as the new gaffer.

Nobody from the club has said who has been interviewed or if the interviews are complete yet, have they?

Not that I'm advocating ignoring a guy if the doctors say he is healthy enough to work, but it does sound scary:

+1 on this. I expected last season would be the struggle after the transition. Having said that, I have been watching this mob long enough to know that any season could turn out like this one. With such a small squad, it only takes a few players to drop performance levels and/or an injury or two to kick off a downward spiral that can be difficult to escape. Just like winning can become a habit, losing can become a habit too.

Aye, much better we rush into an appointment in time for one game, than take a few extra days to make sure we hire the right man for the next few years.

If the Board has time to interview people they don't want to hire to do favours for agents who will reciprocate by trying to screw them over at every turn, they need to rethink their priorities.

Shiels has already been linked to the St. Mirren job (along, of course, with Stark and Adams). The press are just cutting and pasting "St. Mirren" into their old Motherwell articles.

He didn't exactly inspire the team that season, or we wouldn't have needed his free kick.

Accies might well be outperforming us for a few games so far this season, but given that they have been mostly stuck in the lower leagues recently, I think I'll take our budget and overall performances, thanks. I have no idea what budget ICT are on, but I'd be shocked if it wasn't similar to ours. But for all that, in the past few years we have been the team that everyone that outspent us looked up to. Sooner or later, some of those teams (and the teams we outspent) were going to have a better season than us. Right now, I'm more concerned about getting the best out of our team and seeing where that takes us, rather than worrying about who spends what.

Hibs were 7th when he took over and Hearts were pretty much guaranteed to go down. With the resources available, he should have been able to keep them up. When he took us over, albeit in difficult circumstances, we finished bottom too. Moreover, the football wasn't exactly nice to watch. I have no argument with everything he did for us during a difficult time, but the club has moved on since then and we need new ideas, not old ones.

By my quick research (which you could have done yourself, lazy bassa), 1953-54 season when Accies finished bottom of the First Division (16th) and we won the 2nd Division - which still means we had a better season than them.

Confidentiality clauses are standard in these kind of business deals and often a legal requirement depending on the nature of the transaction. If I was involved in the negotiations I'd be insisting on same.

Not in my lifetime. And not yet.

Nice one guys - a great cause.

I'll bet he is non-dom for tax purposes too.

Doesn't matter who he supports, presumably. If he is lending money to the Well Society he won't have the same clout as someone investing directly in the club.

A good team is a balance of ball players and boiler room workers. I don't remember Bobby Russell, Davie Cooper, Gary McAllister etc. giving a shit when they made a bad pass. In fact that is often the sign of a good player who will keep trying to make the killer pass all day long until they pay off.

That's the kind of thing Butcher said when he took over at Hibs - another reason he isn't the man for a team in this situation.

Butcher's record was pretty poor with us, and then he walked away while still under contract after spinning porkies about mid-season holidays in Australia. More worrying, he took over a Hibs side in a better (although still poor) situation and conspired to get them relegated. He was the right man at the right time for his original stint. Not this time I fear. No thanks.

Probably Busta doing a prank call for his podcast.

Standard OF tactics. Plan to keep it tight and then gift a goal within the first 10 mins.

I don't see how anyone can be a red hot favourite at this stage if we are still interviewing candidates next week.

None of the current stories have any quotes, which doesn't surprise me, as our Board have always done a great job of keeping everyone in the dark. I'd be surprised if the appointment isn't a suprise - everything else is just speculation to fill the paper.

Well he is 100% correct in his story. No quotes and "*could* be set for a sensational return". Of course he would also be correct if he said that I "could be set for a sensational return" too, because the Board hasn't revealed anything to the media about how I *could* be on the shortlist.

The names the media has quoted during our last few appointments have been well wide of the mark. I have no reason to think they will be any more accurate this time. It seems they get most of their info from speculation on here.