Kmcalpin

Quite telling I think. I wonder if loyalty / integrity will be a quality our Directors will be seeking. Again we have to caveat our comments as Hughes' involvement is simply a rumour at this stage.

I admit he's a bit smarter than he sounds but I've never been convinced by him. At Falkirk he had a reputation for getting them to play fine football but I saw little evidence of that. A Falkirk supporting work colleague, at the time, said he was baffled by that claim and it was down to a fawning media. At Starks Park he has a difficult job with Raith lying in 3rd bottom spot (maybe a bit similar to us) and he's done nothing so far. So, to sum up I'm just not convinced of him. However, his name being in the ring may just be conjecture, nothing more.

I've no problem with a bit of pant wetting on here Jim. Whatever the appointment there will be happy clappers and pant wetters and all shades of opinions in between; just like large disparate groups such as our support. C'est la vie.

Maybe the Robinson story is one of Mitch's much loved hoaxes. Time will tell.

I agree with this. Maybe things will be clearer by close of the day (COTD). I hate acronyms as the same letters can mean different things to different people.

The inference a few weeks ago seemed to be that our club's interpretation of what constituted a red card was outdated and out of line with everyone else but from incidents since and comments it appears that it is the SFA who have either not made interpretations clear and/or are nor ensuring their employees, the referees, are implementing their updated guidance.

On the Griffiths /Hill penalty claim, former ref Charlie Richmond said Madden got the penalty call right as Hill did get a touch on the ball. Also an excerpt from the Scotsman "If he doesn't know for certain what came first, man or ball, he shouldn't give the penalty." So the issue of excessive force doesn't seem to come into it, its more what came first man or ball. Not what we were led to understand.

I seem to recall that Alan Burrows dismissed a Director of Football role on the basis we couldn't afford it.

We should be up for it Andy given the importance of the fixture. One thing in our favour is that Tom (yes, Tom to some who know a bit about him) Wright won't have much of an idea what to expect from us.

My thoughts exactly. If the people we approached weren't interested will there a better choice in the summer or is it a case we need to find out which division we're playing in? Either way it smacks of indecision and lack of confidence. IF this is the outcome then the Directors have caused at least 2 weeks of unnecessary uncertainty for all connected with the club. A decision 2 weeks ago to give Robinson the job until the end of the season would have made sense then. IF he is given the role temporarily it also suggests that the Directors don't have full confidence in him, unless thats his own choice. Is Robinson the right man for us? I genuinely don't know. He might be or he might not. Anyway until an announcement its made is all speculation and we may have got it totally wrong.

3-5-2 is Motherwell speak for a 5-3-2 or a 5-3-1-1 formation Del. At this stage its almost impossible to call the outcome. We don't know who'll be in charge; it'll be a weaker defence yet with Heneghan missing out; Moulty will be returning; and who knows about injuries. One thing is for sure it won't be a classic. Whatever, I'd like to see either Frear or Pearson starting wide left as that would take the pressure off our sole outball (Cadden). I think young Campbell deserves some game time either from the start or from the bench as we badly need some energy and bite in midfield.

Agree 100%, but it does make you wonder about the quality the other candidates if thats who we've approached. Still we might be pleasantly surprised.

The club may also have approached some candidates who did not apply. In Rumsfeld language its a known unknown.

Lets just take stock shall we. Stephen Robinson has been appointed on a caretaker basis until the Aberdeen game or more likely until a permanent successor is found. So on that basis he's not going to be sacked nor should he be. Postiejim never suggested that he should be fired. The suggestion that he had failed, on the basis of 2 games, is a world away from saying he should be sacked. Its not a matter of semantics nor splitting hairs. There are many opinions of Stephen Robinson on these forums and each member is quite entitled to express them, without being subject to ridicule. I may not agree with some but thats what sensible reasoned debate is all about. Live and let live. Postiejim doesn't think that Robinson has done well and presumably shouldn't be given the job permanently and thats fine. There are quite a few others who agree. That does not mean they should be ridiculed by you or anyone else. There are yet others who think he has done well and should be given the chance. And, finally there are those like me who don't think he has done much (for better or for worse) to help the Directors make their difficult choice - an in between or neutral view if you like. There are many views in between. Stephen Robinson was given, probably, 2 games in charge and its hard to achieve a lot in that time. He's had to work with players not of his choosing. I wasn't expecting miracles in that time. The Killie result, against a fellow bottom 6 side, was good but our defending was still a bit shambolic, Killie hit woodwork several times and we seemed to struggle in the latter stages...yet again. Yesterday we cut out individual calamitous errors, but our defending was still a bit shambolic, we lost and to a late goal again. It was to the league's second best team. So, I was neither impressed nor disappointed by Robinson's 2 games in charge. As for filling the vacancy, A lot is going to depend on who the other 4 candidates are.

Not sure where you picked this up from Stu. I've checked back the posts after the game and haven't found anyone who has suggested that Robinson be sacked from his caretaker role because of the loss today. Given thats only liable to last for a few more days, I can't fathom out what that would achieve. I merely suggested that his performance over the past 2 games has neither helped nor hindered his prospects of landing the job. A lot will depend on who the other 4 candidates are and we don't know. If you can find the source suggesting that he be sacked then fine.

Whether it was a penalty or not is irrelevant; FWIW I didn't think it was. However Killie should not have been in a position to claim one late on when instead we should have been keeping them well out of our danger area. As Spiderpig said we don't know how to see games out vis a vis keeping opponents well away from our goal. We just seem to defend deeper and deeper as the game goes on.

Absolutely Allan. In our last two games we've lost a 92nd minute goal and conceded a very late penalty. Thats not how to see games out.

Its the first time in in recent years that no-one seems to know who the candidates are, with one exception. Not quite sure what that means...maybe media apathy?

It would be hard not to improve on those 2 results Iain. Unless there are things going on behind the scenes, I'd tend to disregard these 2 latest results in assessing his suitability. It seems like we defended for pretty much 90 (95) minutes today without really troubling Aberdeen at all. As we all know in that situation, theres only going to be one outcome. How many shots did we have on target today? I could thole that had we sneaked a 1-0 win but we didn't.

But will it generate confidence? We seem totally incapable of keeping a clean sheet.

I don't know if he's had his chance and failed Jim, but I'd say his brief spell in charge (so far) has been inconclusive. I don't really know what the Directors can take from his 2 games in charge.

In our situation, a defeat is a defeat end of. It really doesn't matter whether Aberdeen's goal came in the first or last minute the result would have been the same. As with games against the gruesome twosome just glad its out of the way. Hopefully Bowman's injury wasn't bad. Certainly a lot better than 7-2. Now we can get down to the real business of appointing the new manager.

Interesting support for Alex Neil on here and I wouldn't disagree with that although I have no idea whatsoever about his track record at Norwich. However at Hamilton he was very much in the John Lambie/Tom Wright mould - very competitive but dull sides. They would kick bite, scratch and claw their way to a result. Other things being equal I think he'd be a good fit for us but I certainly wouldn't expect exciting, flowing football.

Fair comment. There is a reasonable argument for appointing Robinson until the end of the season but as you say what would be the point in advertising the vacancy?

Or a tough midfielder....just ask the Dons for advice.