Kmcalpin

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.

Sounds like progress is being made. Good to read a set of minutes at last.

Of course not. The Directors will be well aware of Mark McGhee's views and vice versa. No need to play silly games by proxy. It may be that Mark McGhee knows his strongest team, taking account of injuries, and wants them to get 90 minutes under their belt for fitness reasons. Also possible, although unlikely, that he doesn't like playing subs because it means paying them appearance money - remember the Terry Butcher era? There could be any number of reasons for his decision.

The original question was the best midfield for this season. From what I've seen and read McHugh would appear to be first choice defensive midfielder. To my mind both Lasley and Clay are also defensive midfielders. IF you look at the current situation I'd pick McHugh, and one from Lasley and Clay to play in the middle, probably the latter given the former's age. Depending on the game you may want to field both but I'd see that as being very rare. But to go back to the original question and looking at the longer/medium term I'd say we need to sign an attacking central midfielder as neither Las nor Clay fit that bill. Pearo may return at the end of the year who knows. Johnson and Cadden would also be my first choices for the wider roles.

I'd go with McHugh + one other maybe not signed yet. Clay and Lasley can slot in as and when needed. From many posters' comments Keith is playing with us a year too long. As far as Clay is concerned we need to give him a chance.

I agree Jim but this is where financial clout comes in. Clubs like Dundee United and Hibs have traditionally offered such youngsters very lucrative salaries and deals to retain them, whereas we couldn't afford to do likewise. That said even Hibs couldn't compete with Burnley. If youngsters are offered a deal with a largish English club they'll be offski.

Just to put a few posters' minds at rest - Mark McGhee said that 3 of our Under 20 Cup winning side moved on - Leitch, Hall and Long with the first two generating fees.

Thats worrying and does little to dispel fears about the squad's fitness.

One game doesn't make or break a season but this is one we really should be looking at winning. As Gregy has written they are of a similar standing to ourselves although they're spending cash (they don't have).

Just watched the 8 minute highlights and while we seemed to have played better than the in the previous week we still showed similar weaknesses. The two goals we lost resulted from criminal defending with Rangers' players being given acres of space and loads of time in our box. When will we learn that such poor defending costs games.

What exactly was his role if you don't mind me asking?

I have no problem with us sitting back and soaking up pressure but we have to have the players to do it and we don't. You have to have two giant centre backs who will win everything in the air and two full backs who play out on the wing. In front of them you need a mobile midfield which protects its defence and sits about 40 yards out from goal to prevent any crosses; shots at goal and runs into the box. You don't hold firm by defending deeply.

That about sums it up.

Its probably down to a number of factors. As you say we weren't giving players on the ball any options - maybe tiredness, maybe lack of confidence. Defensively our off the ball play was woeful - not hassling opponents and not closing them down.

I'm not confident that these issues can be addressed in the short term Al. We are badly short of pace in some areas of the team ie full back and central midfield, and it would also appear stamina. However guys like McManus, Lasley and Hammell (I know he didn't play) just don't have the legs now. What we are short of are sound, solid workers. Take St Johnstone - no superstars but full of hard working organised journeymen who make few mistakes and hassle the opposition for 90+ minutes. We'll certainly need to up our work rate if we are to take anything from today's game.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/scottish/gossip A very interesting snippet in the BBC/Scotsman. It seems that Mark McGhee didn't think we worked hard enough. That assessment is something a few of us have been saying for months now. When we don't have the ball we don't chase and harry but simply retreat. Is that down to the lack of a work ethic, atitude or having too many 30+ players in the side - who knows? Hopefully the management team can figure this one out.

Yes, I picked upon this but wasn't sure whether the club was apologising for its approach or that of the Police. If it was for the latter then that august organisation should apologise for itself.

The problem is that our wingers rarely link effectively with a lone striker. I too would like to see Blyth get some game time though, but probably off the bench. I don't think our midfield is capable of chasing Rangers down and winning the ball. Not confident about this game at all but sometimes thats when we're at our best.

Does anyone know if Josh Strachini has played for our Under 20s yet? He seems to have signed but not featured yet.

Very few sides produce their own keepers these days. Aberdeen, St Johnstone, Inverness, Ross County, Kilmarnock, Hamilton, Partick, Dundee, Dundee United, Hibs????????

You might be right but so far we've never been successful playing with a lone striker. That said we've not had our full complement of strikers available for selection so far this season. The problem with this formation is that more often than not we end up playing a 4-5-0-1 or a 4-5-1-0 formation.

Maybe he's just a diehard Well fan?

I get your underlying reasoning, but so far MacDonald has not linked at all well with 2 wingers supposedly pushing forward, so in that respect it would be a challenge. Also we'd need to win enough ball and distribute it well to the 2 wide men which we weren't doing yesterday. I think a central midfield two of Lasley and Cadden would get ripped apart. I was shocked yesterday at just how far off the pace Keith was. A lot will depend on how fit Hammell, McHugh and Blyth will be. If fit and it came down to a straight choice, I'd prefer McHugh to Lasley. For my part I'd be tempted to drop Ainsworth. Injuries and fitness will play a large part in our line up. IF all except Moult are fit, I'd go with a midfield of Johnson, McHugh, Clay and Cadden with Blyth and MacDonald up front, or with MacDonald playing just behind Blyth.