Kmcalpin

Seconded.

Mark McGhee made reference to this a few days ago when he said that he'd like to sign players from lower league Scots clubs but prices were too prohibitive. Look around the SPFL - we're by no means the only club to look south of the border. An interesting comment too about Belic by MM. He said he works very hard off the ball. This is a quality we lack both defensively and offensively. When the opposition have the ball we don't tend to close down, harry and pressurise. Likewise when one of our players has the ball there's often a lack of options as no-one is moving.

Just noticed that Mark McGhee is talking about using Bowman to play in a 4-3-3 formation, so that might explain the extra striker.

Overall I'm not too displeased with the night's business. I don't feel in the least guilty that we didn't take Johnson's agent's advice and accept Oxford's first bid. Not impressed at all by his or his agent's behaviour. In any event he's now yesterday's man. I'm also puzzled by the number of complaints about the fee being undisclosed. This is not at all uncommon and could be down to several reasons and so I'm a bit disappointed that some posters are having a go at the club over this. There's no evidence to substantiate this. Yes it could be down to MFC but it could also be down to Oxford or indeed both clubs. It could also be down to the player's agent. Furthermore it could be down to accounting and legalities because of the complexity of the deal "with deals becoming increasingly complicated with extra clauses and incentives, and agents becoming more influential, undisclosed fees look set to continue" (Guardian 2013). Transfer fees are now generally paid over several years so thats yet another complication. Anyhow, I'd be disappointed if we didn't receive at least £500K for him, but we'll never know. As regards the newcomers we don't know much about either. Belic seems able to play on the wing up front or in the middle so quite where he fits in remains to be seen. I know nothing about Bowman although at 6-2 tall he should be an all rounder with strength and pace according the Official website. Strange that we're going for another striker and it'll be interesting just how he fits in. Interesting too that we've been after him all summer.

Usually, but not always, a fee is undisclosed at the request of the buying club. Common practice on the continent. Many folk on here don't like undisclosed fees.

Folk on here won't be too enamoured with the club he went to I reckon.

Presumably then the Oxford bid is the one to which Johnson's agent was referring. That would make sense as its now reported that discussions between the club and Johnson's agent have been ongoing for 2/3 weeks.

Wholeheartedly agree. Ideally now, I'd like us to get shot of Johnson, but only for a decent fee; bring in a replacement and then sign an attacking central midfielder. Maybe also loan out a couple of youngsters to toughen them up and ease our wage bill slightly. Thats my hopes anyway.

The club has handled this unsatisfactory situation very well. For years fans have been berating it for letting players leave on the cheap and now that its holding out for a decent price, there are still dissenting voices or should I say keyboards. Tomorrow will be interesting and as others have written why bang in a transfer request now if there are no vultures hovering waiting to pounce? Johnson will have to be careful not to earn himself a bad reputation or to be more precise careful not to let his agent earn him a bad name.

Scott Allan - and who'd want to sign him? Johnson's agent's retort is incredible.

Time to get back on thread folks.

Some party is clearly at it here. Why on earth would he submit a transfer request a few days before the transfer window shuts? Why not do it weeks ago? No doubt he's just been tapped by some club or other and offered decent terms. MFC could could easily play the daft laddie here and agree to his request by saying its come too late during this window but he's available at the right price in January. Would that satisfy him and his agent? I think not. The club has issued a good statement and credit to them for doing that. Johnson has signed a legitimate deal which he expects the club to adhere to, so he should reciprocate that. Of course he can move on but at the right price, so in that respect nothing should change. I suspect we will want to sell him in January in any event.

I couldn't think of an appropriate analogy involving a taxi driver!

Agree about Moult, but Skippy is probably just p****d off at the type of game he's being asked to play and the appalling service he's receiving. Yes, he can be huffy but he's human and few of us like being asked to do someone else's job, which is different to our own's when we turn up for work. A bit like a cabinetmaker turning up for work and being asked to do a roughing joiner's job, or vice versa and being given the wrong tools to do it.

Maybe a tad harsh no? Are you not confusing lack of pace with lack of fitness? That said he's still not fully match fit.

I'd agree that yesterday's back four is probably our strongest and maybe McGhee does too given that Hammell did not get a starting slot. Both full backs lack pace however and given that our central midfiefders also lack pace it seriously limits our attacking options as we witnessed yesterday. Samson didn't do much wrong yesterday although his communication with Heneghan and Chalmers was very poor at times with the pair conceding totally needless corners (not their fault|). Agree that Brill deserves a chance to show what he can do. Clay? I thought he played reasonably well although he faded in the second half and made 2 or 3 perhaps careless, but understandable, errors. He is a decent player, probably an all rounder rather than an out and out attacking player, but badly lacks pace and lies fairly deep. Thats ok if one of his colleagues in the middle is quick off the mark but we don't currently have anyone that fits the bill. Cadden tends to play a good bit wider. That means we either have to play the long high ball, which we did yesterday, unsuccessfully, or bring back the likes of Johnson and Ainsworth which we also did yesterday. In the process that allows their markers to play in more advanced roles. Any runs our 2 whippets make have to be from deep positions. A feature of our play yesterday was a painfully slow, laboured and overelaborate build up, only broken by Cadden's impressive but ultimately unsupported runs. Older fans will remember the days of Ged Brannan when he would collect the ball from defence and then virtually walk 50/60 yards up the pitch to be faced by serried ranks of defenders and then turn back or make a square pass. It was a bit like that yesterday for long spells. By the time our midfield had mounted an attack our opponents had raced back and set out rows of defenders to repel them. Certainly the return of Moult will enhance our attacking options and McHugh will add a bit of protection to a shaky defence.

Some good points but it does throw up some selection issues when everyone is fit. Presumably you think we ought to go 4-4-2? On that assumption we'll say that MacDonald and Moult play up front. The defence may pick itself with the exception of left back and goalkeeper (my view). That then leaves midfield. Assuming that McHugh, Cadden and Johnson are first picks who then do we select for the attacking central midfield role? Clay, who lies deep and lacks pace for all his assets; Lasley; or someone else?

Given the team we put on the park I was happy with a draw. The same weaknesses we witnessed against St Johnstone were again evident today. I thought McManus, Clay, Cadden and Heneghan were the pick of the bunch, with the latter unfortunate to be yellow carded given what had gone unpunished before. Cadden put in a hard shift but unfortunately most of his work had no end product due in no small part to colleagues being unable to support him. Clay is a real enigma. I thought he had a reasonable game especially in the first 45 but faded in the second with a number of unforced errors. That aside though I just don't see where his style of play fits into our team. His lack of pace along with that of Lasley meant that our attacks were painfully slow in the build up. Skippy had a thankless task trying to win short aerial balls against a man mountain who strolled through the game. Again he was forced to play too deep and just didn't link up with Johnson and Ainsworth who were played on the wrong wings and also sat too deep. It was really disappointing that Jacob Blyth didn't make the bench as I thought he had turned the corner fitness wise last week. We enjoyed a lot of possession but had no cutting edge whatsoever. It took us until the 41st minute to register our first shot on target. When defending we again sat in too deep making it easy for an equally toothless Dundee side, but fortunately they couldn't do much either. In the short term I think our objective should have been to reach the Ross County game pretty much in the pack and we've done that. Hopefully Moult, McHugh and Blyth will return by then to bolster a suspect midfield and toothless attack. But we do need to sign an attacking central midfielder, hopefully with pace, next week. If we do I don't see a place for either Lasley or Clay in the side, except as back up or as part of a proper 5 man midfield. It would be churlish not to mention Dundee's defence today who I thought were outstanding. Admittedly their job was made a bit easier by only having to face a lone striker with little midfield back up. They chased, harried, tackled and gave our lads little or no time and space. Any effort on goal we had to work damned hard for it.

Hateley was an ok right back and on a scale of 1 to 10 I'd award him a 7. quite good but by no means the best I've seen play for us. Good at dead balls but he badly lacked pace and often got caught out when trying to outrun an opponent on the overlap.

My understanding, and its only an opinion, is that Les has moved the goalposts for "personal reasons" whatever they may be.

Initially your criticism sounded very harsh and negative but the more I think on it the more I think you're right. At the moment we're playing with a deep lying defensive central midfield and a solitary striker and that doesn't aid creativity. Yes, Ainsworth, Johnson and Cadden are fast but most of the others are one paced. You've also got our 3 veterans in Hammell, Lasley and McManus. Of the newcomers, Clay and Tait do seem slow. Unfit? Yes, I'm beginning to wonder as we seem to tire badly in the second half of games. A slight chink of light is that Moult and McHugh will return from injury. Hopefully too we'll sign a attacking central misdfielder with a modicum of pace next week. However the team and in particular central midfield are unbalanced. Early days though.

Good post David. The alternative to a Society takeover would be sale to any party if one came forward or I suppose administration/liquidation in the worst case scenario. I agree with Dennyc that the ball should be in our court as Les Hutchison has moved the goalposts after the game kicked off. However we don't know whats written into the original agreement which may give him licence to do that. At the best though its been unfair.

The Society and Club are not classed as public bodies in the same way that local authorities are for example. Therefore they are not covered by Freedom of Information or Environmental Information Regulation legislation. I suspect that if the Society or Club were to stipulate that all information be available to members then Les would have walked away. I agree about communication being poor.

I don't know. Our core support is say 3,600 and the Society membership is 1,912. On that basis the Society membership represents about 53% of our support. Thats a maximum figure as not all members attend games and so I'd say its about 50%. Of the half who haven't joined a significant proportion, and I wouldn't care to quantify that, would never ever join under any circumstances. The Society and club know that perfectly well. I do however share some of your concerns. I am confident that the Society will take over the club in the not too distant future. The Society wants it, the club does and so does Les. The problem is that Les moved the goalposts a little way into a five year period. Not surprisingly the Society had to rip up financial plans and rejig them. As far as I can see, the only feasible and fair way for the Society to pay our benefactor back is to do so through a cut of future transfer fees. A lot of money is stake and I'm not in the least bit surprised that lawyers are painstakingly going through details. In my career I've was assured several times that a project was all but signed sealed and delivered only to be delayed for months or even a year by lawyers going through seemingly straightforward issues and raising problems. I've no doubt that the Society takeover is exactly the same.

Jim McMahon certainly does have the club's welfare at heart and woe betide any party that threatens it. As Onthefringes said he wasn't at the AGM but was at the meeting downstairs in the Centenary Suite. He was pretty forthright as he always is. As for your questions, some remind me of sports journos questions on BBC. 1) If the club, and indeed Society, doesn't think that its a good deal they will not simply not sign up for it end of. Why would they? 2) Very similar to 1). If the MFC Board doesn't believe in it why on earth are they pursuing it? A bit like asking Mark McGhee if he wants to win on Saturday - I doubt if he wants a defeat and would be shocked and very very annoyed if he did. 3) Les is the current owner and as such the ball is in his court, not ours. If the Society bid fails, and I hope it doesn't, he could either wind the club up or put it up for sale to the highest bidder - neither is likely according to what we were told. 4) If it was a no goer pulling out early would only exacerbate his problems as less cash would have been repayed to him.