Kmcalpin

I'll go along with that. They do seem to be in the "last chance" or "jurys still out category". I see that Accies have awarded 2 of their 18 year olds 2 year deals which suggests they rate their lads a bit higher. Craig Moore has been around for a few years, suffered a bad injury but never really made it so far. David Ferguson burst onto the first team scene, albeit through necessity, but hasn't yet made the step up. They now have another year to prove themselves. In terms of strikers I wouldn't really want to rely on Moore or Faddy (for different reasons) to fill in if say Louis Moult was injured for any length of time.

If he re-signs I'd expect one more striker to arrive. To go with Moult, McDonald and Moore leaves our options a bit light up front.

I was a bit suspicious when rumours began to circulate about Dundee showing an interest in el-Bakhtoui - this smacks of an agent trying to stir up a bidding war. 3 re-signings; so far so good. On top of re-signings (assuming all but one re-signs) then I guess we should be looking at 2/3 additional new faces.

Completely agree that the Society should do more to engage with members and use their skills and time. Surely there are members who could donate a few hours of their time to carry out even basic admin duties.

Lest hope its the last! Presumably its to increase the entertainment value. It will only serve to lengthen games and encourage some teams to hold out for a draw rather than trying to win.

I can't disagree in theory but the club staff already have their hands full working for the club. Also, if the Society used more of the club's resources to up its game some fans, including members would complain that a rising proportion of the Society's income was going to pay expenses and also that the club and Society should remain independent. You can't please all of the people all of the time......

As far as I know there were no other clubs represented at the meeting last night. What he says in private is not what he'll say to other clubs. Jim McMahon won't be pushed around as easily as you think.

Who owns the club?

You raise a few points Jay. Like you I was pleased to hear that the Society Board will fight its corner for the best deal and will not allow members' contributions to be used to pay off debt - they will be used for the long term benefit of the club. As for AGMs , I've been to many over the years in many different organisations and almost all have been dull to a lesser or greater extent. Thats their nature. Ploughing through accounts and such like isn't everyone's cup of tea but its necessary. As for the team photograph issue - it was raised by a member from the floor (not the top table) and I do agree that it shouldn't be a huge issue. Thats as may be but it was raised and the top table had to address it - it would not have looked good at all had the member been ignored. Had he been ignored some members would have complained that the top table was being arrogant and dismissive. The missing minutes - agreed. Now the issue of the 400 original/missing members. That doesn't surprise me at all and I raised that again after you left (along with the important issue of members living outwith Lanarkshire). Its my recollection that originally members were never really reminded of annual renewals - so some did renew and some didn't and it was hit or miss; some claimed benefits and some didn't. When the idea of monthly pledges was introduced that complicated matters even further and I asked the Society where that left the original members but that was never made clear. As it stands now, members do not need to renew annually and as we know 400 or don't. Some have lost interest, some haven't out of principle but probably the vast majority just don't know that they can or should be. In short they are confused or unaware. The system needs clarified and simplified to tell all members that they can sign up to a monthly pledge or annual one off payment if they wish (there is no compulsion). We heard last night that the Society manager is currently contacting all the original members to do this. I agree communication has been poor and that was acknowledged but its hard given the administrative resources. I agree more should be done and perhaps this could be achieved by spending a little bit more (if costs rose markedly some members would complain). Maybe the Society should use volunteers from amongst its membership.

I'm sure it was said last night that Les had increased the playing budget last year which would be consistent with the influx of players coming in under Ian Baraclough.

Attendance at AGMs is an automatic switch off for many folk and not just in footballing circles - I'm not unduly concerned at that. Such meetings are low on most folks agendas football fans or not. Your summary of Jim McMahon's views are pretty accurate. I took heart from the fact that he is negotiating on behalf of the Society and will not accept just any old deal. I wasn't unduly disturbed at what I heard. Of course its not a done deal and the worst case scenario is that no agreement is reached and Les decides to market the club. That said, there will be no queue of white knights ready to splash the cash and its in his best interests to strike a deal soon. I was heartened to hear the word "sustainable" used over and over again and pleased that the Society is looking beyond the short term. Pleased to hear that the Society Board will not sign up if it isn't in the best interests of its members and the club. There's no point in the club keeping its head above water in the next 2 years but then fail after that.

I reckon we can expect some re-signing news this week possibly as early as today. Almost all of those offered new deals will accept them I'd wager.

Some do yes but very very few. The vast majority love Motherwell first and foremost and dislike Rangers and Celtic equally.

It should be an interesting meeting and we're planning to go along to get an update on the ownership change. Hopefully the attendance will be reasonable.

Don't forget that some, and I mean some, threw missiles including seats, at our fans on the pitch (yes they shouldn't have been there).

Oh I forgot to ask "What steps will the SFA be taking to identify all those who let off smoke bombs, sang sectarian songs, and invaded the pitch?".

I can't take issue with that. Stevie has never been the best defender and last season his mistakes were becoming more frequent and costly. As I've always said, good on the ball poor off it.

Why the SFA of course. They were in charge of the overall arrangements including the stewarding. What was the stewards/fan ratio? Whatever it was it wasn't adequate. Were sufficient warnings issued by the SFA to fans prior to the game and during the game. Does this all sound very familiar? Surely the SFA must investigate itself!

I would have been at it but can't recall the game. Seems that Kirky Lawson and Jim McCabe scored the goals.

Agreed, but any interested club would also need to offer higher wages and/or a longer deal.

Surprised that we're discussing the new Celtic manager on our Forum under "Mark McGhee". There will be wall to wall coverage in the media for anyone so inclined. If we must discuss it there could be a thread under "General Football". Personally I've no interest in this whatsoever, but just think our forum should be our forum.

Don't bank on it.

Maybe some truth in that. When I saw him at first he seemed to have a bit of talent and skill about him although woefully short of pace.

You're right about Chalmers and it seems obvious that Mark McGhee doesn't rate him. I doubt very much though that Ian Baraclough scouted the likes of Straker and Chalmers on his own. Someone else must have recommended them.

Before my time, although my late father was at it. An interesting game and a lot of talk at the time about our games against Hibs. On 14 October 1951 Hibs whacked us 6-2 at Fir Park. A fortnight later later Hibs were odds on favourites to beat us in the League Cup Final but we beat them 3-0.