Kmcalpin

I don't think anyone is saying we're having a poor season or haven't made progress. So, lets put that misunderstanding to bed. We've made top six and won't finish below 5th. Thats on merit. However we're on a bad run just now and shipping goals for fun. We're also failing to convert chances. We now face 5 top 6 sides, 3 games of which are are away from home. Our record against top 6 sides this season isn't great. Add to the mix that referees have an axe to grind just now and it all adds up to a dose of realism. Have other sides sussed us? Up to a point, but I wouldn't overegg that. Irrespective of our next 5 results, it will have been a good season.

Red card too?

Quite upbeat tonight. I always thought the critical result for us would be at Pittodrie not Tynecastle, as I had virtually written us off today. The Dons came good fortunately. So, we're no worse off than we were this morning with a game more played. However our poor run continues and its hard to see where our next point is going to come from after the split. Our defence is giving goals away for fun just now and we seem toothless up front. Our nosedive continues It seems our best chance of retaining 4th spot will be relying on Hibs hibsing it.

Callum Slattery. See Graeme McGarry's article in the Herald.

Unfortunately, the same line starting line up as last week. Big Thor isn't fit. Hendry and Gordon on bench and no starting place for Priestman.

Internal layout is not a planning issue. The planning authority would not address that. However, there are genuine non planning issues issues as Goggles has laid out. As a club we should want the best bang for our buck. Anyone, absolutely anyone, can comment on the principle of the proposal and external design of the building and other aspects of the application. I would add though, that no one party has a right to a "good" view. Not an issue in this case though. Consultees can make representations objecting but also supporting an application. In short, get involved!

To put matters in perspective, I suspect the additional costs involved would be fairly modest compared to the overall cost.

I wouldn't quite go that far, but yes, I don't see it as being "transformational". It is very much a low budget option. Will it benefit the club? Undoubtedly. As far as the overall package is concerned, I take it that there will be the same number of pitches as we have at present, albeit in 2 locations, if we include Braidhurst? It will be a significant advantage to have dressing rooms and catering facilities etc available on site. In the short to medium term, it will also free up space at Fir Park eg the current gym under the South Stand and allow hospitality facilities under the POD to be used commercially during the week. Presumably, the gym, treatment room, and other facilities will also be an upgrade on what we have already. As far as the new building is concerned, its utilitarian and won't win any design awards but that doesn't concern me. The internal layout won't concern me or the planning authority. It does seem a bit tight though as its designed specifically for 30 first players and 18 academy players. What if, further down the line a new manager or Board want to increase the academy to 20 players? A modest increase in costs might provide a degree of flexibility. As for the pitches, will the proposal allow the women's team to play their games there? If they do, that will save rental at K Park. I'm a bit disappointed that the proposals don't include plans for a modest stand i.e. 100-200 spectators. It wouldn't need to be an all singing all dancing facility. One aspect that does concern me is that there doesn't appear to be any obvious resolution of land ownership issues. Ostensibly we're forking out £1.5-2m on a building on another party's land. Likewise the new artificial pitch - will we have exclusive of that? One source of comfort is that the other party is a well known local charitable trust. Presumably we do have some kind of land use/ownership arrangement in place to safeguard the club's interests? As for the planning process, I doubt that will delay or disrupt the proposals. Thats not to say there won't be any objections. Its an established use on an established site and involves the replacement of an existing building. Apart from an on site bungalow, the nearest residential neighbours are about 230m away. The only aspect that might concern them is floodlighting in the winter evenings but then again, there may already be existing lights in place. I doubt that traffic will be an issue. The design statement is comprehensive, but obviously not written by planners, as can be seen from the language used. It could have been a bit more assertive. Presumably the water and drainage submissions will be added shortly. Iam concerned though about the manner in which the plans have been publicised; in effect through a fan picking them up from the Council's planning website (proposals had been posted there for weeks). We've also seen some media coverage in the Sun, Scotsman and BBC for example. The Society and club have promised us big news for weeks now but yet nothing on this. As I write, still nothing on the club or Society's media platforms. A bit disappointing from a fan owned club. The above is mostly my own observations and opinions but I have drawn on the well informed and expert views of Patient 91 on P & B. Well worth a read if you haven't already done so.

It seems that the club has applied for planning permission for build new training facilities at Cleland on the site of the current but basic provision at Dalziel Park. https://eplanning.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=TBUC9BBAN5700 Thanks to Standupforthemotherwell on P & B for posting this. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone on here. This development is long overdue. Its well known that interested parties can object to planning applications, but maybe not as well known that any party can also submit letters of support. Have a look. I'm just surprised, that as this is already in the public domain, the club hasn't announced it yet.

Agree 100%. The solution is for fans to hit the TV companies where it hurts... in their wallets. Unsubscribe! I did so years ago and have never regretted it.

Thats what concerns me here.

Irrespective of where we finish now, it will have have been a good season. Improved league placing; increased attendances; and more exciting football. The final judgement on JBA's reign will depend on where he takes us from here and, of course, the jury is still out on that. So far, he's done very well in a short space of time. This summer's recruitment will be a big test for him. The bottom line is that we have to build on this year's success and not stagnate.

I'd like to start by signing up Olly Whyte for an extended term. News has been very scant on that front so far. Could we blood him before the end of the season as Stenhousemuir's season ends before ours?

Pretty much as expected although the order is a bit odd. The usual factors determined the list. Home to Hearts and v Celtic (midweek) and Hibs away last game. Happy enough with that except that the Celtic game is midweek. No 3pm Saturday home fixtures. As expected, Falkirk get an extra home game; well done them. I can't see any title winning games at Fir Park.

We, and I include myself here, have forgotten that Ewan Wilson is also under contract for another year.