David

I do not think it was solely about the team selection, but it is difficult to ignore the role it played. The way we ask our goalkeeper to operate demands a particular skill set. I am not suggesting Connelly does not possess that ability, as he may well do, but introducing him in a fixture of that significance did not feel like the right call. It may even have been his pass that led to the situation which resulted in the first red card, if I am not mistaken. I have seen others make that point as well. As I mentioned earlier, cup matches are important enough that we should be fielding our strongest side. Connelly is a promising young goalkeeper, but he is not our first choice. Ward is. He should have started in my opinion. I don't think we're at a place where we can have a separate cup keeper. It is unlikely that this group of players will still be together if we do reach Europe. There is every chance that two or three will move on in the summer for decent transfer fees. Whether those who come in to replace them will be of the same standard is impossible to say at this stage. We would also be facing the challenge that most Scottish sides encounter in the qualifying rounds, namely going into competitive European ties with new signings in key roles who are still settling in, and possibly under a different manager as well. For me, the priority has to remain on the present. Each season, our objective should be clear and uncompromising. We should be attacking the domestic cups with real intent and giving ourselves the best possible opportunity to lift silverware.

It's not actually like that whatsoever, but you can feel free to think that if you like. We should be trying to win every single game. Absolutely nowhere do I say we "are not going to try" to win the league because we want to win a cup. For me, it's simple. At this stage of either cup competition, especially against Premier League opposition, you play your strongest team. After the next round of the cup, we're going to be looking at no Hearts, only one of Rangers or Celtic, and Dundee United/Falkirk, Dunfermline/Aberdeen, St Mirren/Partick Thistle. That's one of the more winnable Scottish cups I've seen in a while. As for the league, however, if we're being entirely honest, we're looking to consolidate 4th spot. And we're currently 5 points ahead of Hibs with a game in hand, so I don't think we necessarily had to rotate as many players as we did last night. would having Ward, Longelo, Watt & Said instead of Connelly, Gordon, CRC & Bjorg have made any difference last night? Who knows. If those players who stepped in last night are equally as good as the ones who were rotated out, I wonder if we'll see similar rotation if and when we play Saturday/Wednesday in the league between now & end of season? It may just be me then, but I don't look back on the games in the qualifying rounds of Europe against Flamurtari, Krasnodar, Stjarnan or even Panathinaikos with the same fondness that I do our Scottish Cup win in '91. And I'd go as far as saying that none of the teams who played against any of the sides we've played in Europe are as highly regarded as that Cup winning side. There's a reason for that. What St Mirren did this season in the League Cup against Celtic? If that was us? We'd be dining on that for decades, and rightfully so. Again, not saying Europe isn't important. This isn't an "either/or" situation. All I'm saying is that when it comes to football, there's nothing that compares with actually winning something. For me, anyway.

McGinn for me. Very few others got pass marks in my opinion.

Nah, there's a lot more to it than that. As someone who was there when we last won a cup, it's still something that lives in my memory to this day. Being there with family who are no longer with us, the anticipation, the build-up to the final, then the aftermath with the open-top bus parade and the whole town being absolutely bouncing. There's a reason why the team that won in '91 is considered club legends. Even if we did get to the group stages of European football in most likely the Conference League, which would be great financially, I don't think anyone will be sitting here describing it in the same way over thirty years later. Actually lifting a trophy at Hampden is likely as good as it gets for a Motherwell fan.

Should probably have started a team befitting of a game against Aberdeen away, rather than Albion Rovers.

Ox is a solid keeper, he's just fallen victim to the new manager/new way of playing curse that can happen to players. Hopefully if he does move on he finds more game time.

McGinn for me. Immense at the back.

What has encouraged me most is the return of supporters who had drifted away, alongside newer fans beginning to feel at home. If we nurture that properly, it is something that can endure well beyond any single season. It's right to highlight that the real test lies in maintaining this momentum. Positive results on the pitch will always play their part, but it is the development of lasting habits that transforms a strong season into a stronger club over time. When people enjoy coming to games, feel connected to the club, and recognise genuine progress, they are far more likely to remain involved, I think. From the perspective of supporter ownership, increased attendances bring benefits that extend well beyond the matchday experience. They reinforce the club’s overall resilience and support the framework that keeps it in the hands of its fans. A larger and more committed following provides a firmer foundation for the future. There is a real opportunity in front of us if everyone works together with a shared purpose. The aim should be to ensure this period is not simply remembered as a great season, but recognised as a moment that helped move the club forward. Long may it continue.

When people talk about “investors” in the context of clubs like Motherwell, it is important to be clear about what sort of investor is actually being discussed. The reality is that Motherwell does not appeal to most modern football investors, and that is not a criticism of the club. It is simply a reflection of economic reality. The type of investor who might be drawn to Motherwell is usually motivated by values rather than financial return. These are typically people who are already financially secure and are interested in stewardship, legacy, and being associated with a proper football club with deep roots. They are not looking to double their money. What they want is a club that is well run, stable, and still standing decades from now. The attraction lies in authenticity, community, and involvement in something that genuinely matters at a local level. They also tend to be patient and knowledgeable about football. They understand the constraints of Scottish football and accept that relegation risk is part of the landscape. They recognise the need to keep wages under control and know that chasing ambition without the resources to support it usually ends badly. These investors are not imagining regular European qualification or Premier League style valuations. Their focus is on sustainability, sensible player trading, and maintaining competitiveness without putting the club’s future at risk. Where Motherwell can make sense is through minority or carefully structured investment. This suits investors who do not require full control, who are comfortable with influence rather than ownership, and who prioritise protections over power. That approach aligns far better with a fan ownership model than someone arriving with the intention of running everything themselves. So why do most investors avoid clubs like Motherwell? Firstly, there is no obvious growth narrative. There is no major upside from television deals, no vast global fanbase waiting to be monetised, and no realistic path to becoming a regular presence in European competition. For investors focused on scale and rapid growth, Motherwell appears constrained from the outset. Secondly, the downside risk is severe. Relegation would significantly damage revenues and confidence, and a swift recovery is never guaranteed. From an investment perspective, this often looks like limited upside paired with substantial downside, which is enough to put many people off immediately. Thirdly, revenues have a clear ceiling. Matchday income, sponsorship, and broadcasting all have hard limits that even excellent management cannot fundamentally change. You can run the club better, but you cannot transform it into something it is not. Governance is another concern. Fan involvement brings many positives, but investors often worry about slower decision making, internal politics, and blurred lines of authority. Most investors prefer clean structures and the ability to make decisions quickly. By its nature, Motherwell does not operate in that way. Finally, exit options are unclear. Most investors want a clear sense of how they might eventually realise their investment. With clubs like Motherwell, there is rarely a straightforward answer. There is no obvious queue of buyers, no flotation on the horizon, and no guaranteed uplift in valuation. The honest position is this. Motherwell is not for those chasing big returns. It suits realistic, patient people who care about stability, community, and preserving a real football club that can remain competitive over the long term. If the club is ever presented as something it is not, investors will spot that immediately. But if it is open and honest about what it is, there will always be people willing to get involved. They just will not be the ones you see featured in Netflix documentaries.

Can't agree there, Kelly got tons of grief when his form dropped.

Christ almighty.

I have literally never met a Motherwell fan who wanted us to merge with Accies. Ever.

Anyone got Ellery Balcombe's number?

Known in Lanarkshire circles as "the cheap option."

I would be more worried if we'd brought in a manager who had started talking about "good honest professionals" who "run their socks off." Personally, I want modern and new dimensions. As I've heard people say in the past, if we're going to be pushing for top six/finishing 7th-9th, let's at least make it exciting for the people who part with their hard earned cash to watch.

Not at all, I think the more discussion and ideas being exchanged, the better.

Can you provide some examples? Don't feel like you have to, I just found this comment interesting.

And I would have been very surprised if you'd said anything other than that.

It really depends on what the club wants. If it wants pragmatic solidity, clear structure, and safety-first organisation that grinds results, Neilson is your man. If they prefer high-intensity pressing, rapid transitions, attacking fluidity, and a knack for developing youth talent, someone like Wimmer offers a more modern, progressive style.

If we're looking for adventure, I'd rather we looked overseas. The idea of having Brown, who will be under the media spotlight as a "former Celtic man" throughout his tenure with us isn't really the kind of adventure I want. He'll never be "Scott Brown, Motherwell manager," he'll always be "Scott Brown, former Celtic player and scourge of Rangers." If we're looking at hiring a Scottish manager, I'd choose Neilson over Brown.

Personality is all well and good, but I’d take a manager who knows how to get results any day. Neilson might not light up a press conference, but he’s shown he can win games in Scotland. A win rate of 51 percent across more than 400 matches as a manager. He guided Hearts to the Championship title twice, once in a league that included both Hibs and Rangers, and again in a season with Dundee in the mix. He also led Dundee United to the title. He’s taken a team to a Scottish Cup final and secured a third-place finish as well. If we’re judging Scottish managers purely on achievements and consistency, I’d say he’s well ahead of Brown at this stage.

Not at all. My point is that we need to move with the times. Look at the other leagues in Europe. They see foreign coaches all the time, it's commonplace. But in Scotland, we still look at a foreign coach as something exotic and risky, when in truth, it's not any more risky than appointing someone like Pressley or Neilson. I was more questioning your logic behind the notion that a less-than-stellar experience with Wimmer would represent a need to return to the status quo. I don't agree with that at all.

This is what I heard also, although not in any official capacity. And as you say, that is a private matter. What I am confident of is that it wasn't a case of him arriving at Motherwell and deciding he missed his family. He knew exactly what would be required, in the short-term at least, when it came to that side of things.

So, going by your reckoning, and as weeyin says above, a new manager who we recruit from the south of England would fall into the "unfamiliar foreigner" category.

I know a few things have been floated out there, but I don't believe that Wimmer left because he missed his family. There was more to it than that.