Kmcalpin

Agreed. There's a worrying lack of experience in the team and we're short of a right back. SOD's best days RB days may be over but surely he's a better option than Sparrow there? Our defence in the league this season has been poor and we need to shake things up in that department. Paul McGinn. At best months, but will he make the first team again?

Ditto. I wasn't impressed last night, but in fairness, he had no chance with any of the goals as Aberdeen's finishing was something we could only dream of. He failed to command his area and on one occasion got mixed up with one of the central defenders when he should have taken control. He was also almost caught out twice with the ball at his feet. As for midfield, we really do miss Priestman for his energy and movement.

A big part of our problem last night was a dysfunctional midfield. Big gaps between it and the defence and attack. Fadinger playing a different role and Hodge being totally off it. I'm still baffled why Longelo, one of our better players, seems to be sidelined so often.

It was obviously pre planned. Just too quick to be coincidental.

Some fair points there. Its too early to judge AJ but the warning lights are blinking but not flashing. A member of our group commented last night that we looked a poorly coached team and we did. We lost some very good players in Ward, Watt, Welsh and Just and we're suffering because of that. They all moved on for a reason. Again its, too early to judge our overall summer recruitment but what is apparent is our failure to bring in some physicality and leadership. I get that physicality and ability don't come cheap. Our style of football is somewhat different from last year and I'm not sure we have the players to replicate that solid possession based approach. A lot more reliance on long high balls, despite not having the players (on the park) to effect that. If we're going to go down that route then Thor and SPH must start. Somewhat unfairly, AJ will not be given unlimited time to get things right and he'll need to sort things out and quick. Last night's debacle, which I'd rate as being worse than last season's Hampden defeat to St Mirren, was the worst I can recall for several years and many fans streamed out last night extremely unimpressed. Lets hope we're not going backwards and last season's progress quickly becomes history.

I'm not sure it would be the beginning of the end but I agree it would be very damaging for AJ. Tonight was one of those games where we were beaten before a ball was kicked. Individual errors only compounded that. The starting line up raised a few eye brows. Most obvious was the inclusion of the ineffective RCC. Just why? Questionmarks too over Sparrow's inclusion before SOD; Girdwood Reich before KL; and Kanga in preference to Said. Substitutions? Why were they left so late when it was patently clear the team needed a shake up well before the break. Tactics wise, we didn't seem to have any Plan A never mind Plan B. The team was poor in transition and its clear we badly lack physicality and leadership. Its also worrying when stalwarts like Fadinger are right off the boil. We're not controlling games like we did last season (even when we weren't winning). I just don't get the long ball tactic - it simply didn't work tonight. Also why sling over crosses when we don't have a recognised striker on the pitch? Did anybody from the club bother to watch Aberdeen last weekend? It certainly didn't seem like it as we had no idea how to break them down. Its concerning when, after a 10 day break to allow us to work on the training ground, we seem to have regressed. The players looked jaded, slow and lacking in energy. I can't put my finger on it but something just doesn't seem right.

Only one contender - Lowry.

Yes, I would support this kind of project. However the initial stumbling block is the lack of decision on the stadium feasibilty study.

Probably back in Scandinavia for a long weekend.

Absolutely Denny. Personally, I'd like to know more about the projects that would be supported. As you say, I'd prefer to wait until our reserve fund is fully built up; certainly it should be set in excess of £1.5 m now. A blurring of responsibilities? Whilst the Society should not seek to involve itself in day to day matters, the club should be mindful of who its owners are. That should involve being held to account by the Society. The Society owns the club ; the club does not own the Society.

Hopefully by now, members will have received the consultation email. To understand the background to this initiative and submit your response, its best to view the full podcast beforehand.

A pertinent question Denny, which has not been answered. I think it has been raised before on here, and still no answer has been forthcoming. The current Dalziel Trust is currently a friendly and cooperative landlord, but as you rightly point out, we can't always assume that to be the case. It has to put its own interests, and not those of MFC, first. We can only guess that the lease is very long term i.e. something like 99 years but we simply don't know. Also, we have not been told what if any legal safeguards have been built into the agreement. It raises all manner of questions.

Good post David. I'm not sure that a vote would be absolutely necessary; it may be, but at the very least, the members should have been kept informed and we weren't. As has been posted before, the members and indeed the wider fan base, only found out about the Dalziel development completely by accident, after a vigilant fan stumbled across the application on the Council's weekly list. Indeed its highly likely that "non fans" (i.e. local residents), if I may be allowed to use that term, were informed before fans. The Club and Society should have been more open by publicising the proposals in advance. Its a very newsworthy item - why would you not do that?

Lucas Weir goes out on loan to Cowdenbeath. I didn't know his father is David Weir.

The Society, as club owners (or in effect we, the ordinary members/fans) does need to be a bit more transparent especially over the feasibility study. The club has, quite rightly, been very professional and discreet in playing matters such as the appointment of our new manager and players. Our financial position is also healthy in the extreme. So well done to it for that. Quite an achievement all told. Of late, communication from the Society has been much improved through the roadshows for example. An encouraging development. However, this improvement has not extended to governance or major decisions of strategic importance on which the members should be consulted. Transparency has been in short supply. As an example, I checked the Society Board meeting minutes and found that the last ones to be uploaded to the website relate to 15 September 2025, almost a year ago. As a fan based organisation, the Society should be more open. Goggles & Flippers and Joewarkfanclub have both made excellent posts, with which I agree, in the last few days and they reflect my views. We've placed our trust in the Society Board, and through them in the club itself. It shouldn't be too much to ask that they be more transparent with us over major issues like stadium improvement/relocation.

It may help in some cases, but its really tinkering round the edges. For many young lads, a first team salary of say £2k weekly up here would pale into insignificance against a salary of say £5,000 a week at a Wolves or Bournemouth. If the SFA ever impose financial penalties on clubs not giving youngsters game time then the fines should be based on turnover and not be a flat rate.

Good post Denny. The biggest single issue is that of compensation payable by large English clubs. By dangling very attractive salaries to young Scots, they hoover up the best talent. Thats a very hard nut to crack, but the SFA can't ignore that. Most of these youngsters head south and then return home a year or two later. Understandable,but it does stunt their development.

Its a half baked daft idea which will achieve nothing. Larger clubs would simply ignore any requirement and take the relatively modest financial hit.

Can we compete with big English clubs who pay out fortunes to lure young players to their academies? How do we crack that one?

You could well be right Allan but the club should be doing more than just hinting about its preferred option. It should be coming out and telling us.

Lets start with the SFA...

I'm fully with you this Goggles, as I've said before. Now we could discuss ad infinitum on this thread about the actual size of a proposed new stadium ranging anywhere from 10K to 18K and all stops in between, but thats for another day. Yes, a new stadium would be very expensive but so would staying at Fir Park as you show here. Costs apart, Fir Park is now no longer fit for purpose in 2026. As you rightly say our stadium is hemmed in by a 20th century land use legacy. The footprint is very tight and limits what can be done. Specific points: * The POD is on life support and needs demolished and replaced urgently. Space for development is severely restricted by the housing near Mrs Baillies. That will never change. * The Hunter Stand at minimum needs a new roof. Its the wrong shape, with access limited to one end and as we've seen recently long queues building up on busy match days. There is no room whatsoever to expand to the east. Catering and toilet facilities are poor and always will be. The views are also poor due to the low inclination of the seating and steel supports, which result in impaired access for some. * The McLean Stand is ageing and replacement of seating is already an issue. * The Cooper Stand is probably in the best health, but the hospitality facilities are sub standard and access for disabled fans is problematic, if not impossible. * At some stage, the floodlights will need replacement but I've no idea of the cost of that. No doubt there other maintenance issues about which we are unaware. Safety standards are ever evolving and each year more work needs to be done, at considerable cost, just to maintain the status quo. The world has changed but Fir Park hasn't kept pace and never will be able to. Fans in 2026 will simply not tolerate the same standard of facilities our predecessors did 60 or 70 years ago.

Not the best of pass backs but I'm with you on this one Great Balls. Paulsen had the time to avoid this error. 100% at fault.

Thats correct. The OF were prime movers in getting that arrangement binned.

I agree that the Society doesn't run the club, but it does own the club on behalf of the members i.e. the fans. I don't think folk on here, including myself, want it to get involved with mundane issues like the cost of a bovril or the plumbing in the POD. However, I'd say that a study into the pros and cons of replacing the POD versus moving to a new stadium is of great interest and a summary of the findings should be made public. Now, we don't need to know detailed costings or a line by line account. All we need to know is the conclusions with some basic reasoning behind it. The report was received back in February, about 7 months ago. Surely the Club Board and the Society have got a good grasp of what its recommending and why? If that isn't a major strategic issue then I don't know what is. Finally, the POD seating. There is widespread concern amongst inhabitants of the stand about the seating and Brian Caldwell, under pressure directly from fans, was forced to issue a statement. That was helpful up to a point. However, the Society, as representative of the fans, has, ostensibly, taken no part in the issue apart from passively passing on complaints. We have no idea, despite asking, if the Society has even discussed member concerns, let alone expressed them to Brian. The Society has been great for the club and lets not forget it has saved it and I'm a firm supporter, but it isn't above criticism.