David

I was just about ready to throw myself out a window after trying to explain to a younger family member that Steve Clarke "getting us to major tournaments" isn't as impressive as it might have been when we were doing it in the 80's and 90's, when said tournaments included 24 and 8 teams. Don't get me wrong, I grudgingly respect Clarke getting us to the tournaments he has, but let's not pretend that it's even close to the same as Roxborough getting us to the 1990 World Cup and 1992 Euros. It's mental to think that tournament in 1992 featured us and only seven other teams!

Progression for me doesn't mean attaining more success, it's more about continuing with what we've been doing. I'm thinking more along the lines of establishing ourselves as a mainstay in the top six, for example. We've finished in the top six something like three times in the past ten years, so establishing a run of finishing in the top six would be progress in my opinion. Continuing to play an attractive, exciting brand of football that attracts fans to the ground is also important. That's mainly what I mean when I say it would have been interesting to see how JBA would have fared in his second season.

I guess a question I have is, *whisper it*, would Jens have managed to continue the success with the same approach in his second season? Your Slot comment is interesting, because we saw the difference between his two seasons in charge. Sadly, we'll never know. We can only be thankful for the incredible season we had.

I agree with you. If he were German or Danish and could squeeze into a slim-fit Uniqlo long-sleeve minimalist-style t-shirt, opinion on him would likely be very different. There are a few things that I admire about McGlynn's style, including his brave decision to reject the usual approach to Scottish Championship-level football (direct, physical, second-ball contests) in favour of a more attractive, proactive approach. I have probably watched more of Falkirk in the second half of this season than any club outside of our own, and it's mental how calm they seem to play. They often looked like a side who just know the goal would eventually come through repetition and patience rather than chaos and panic. Some would say that has proven to be the way to actually undo us this season. McGlynn seems to be more interested in Intelligent footballers. Falkirk this past season had technically sound midfielders, full-backs comfortable in possession, and mobile, versatile attackers. He is one of the rare few generally less interested in the "run your socks off, earn the right to play football" approach that many Scottish managers (and some not Scottish managers, it must be said) tend to employ. That said, his approach is different from the system we have in place at the moment, even if I do rate McGlynn highly. In my view, he favours a system where the players look comfortable, the system serves the players, and they play with confidence, rhythm and repetition. Us under Jens seemed more along the lines of constant movement, pressing triggers, rotations and tactical demands. Everything feels designed to overwhelm opponents physically and mentally, where the players serve the system instead. What the real question is, is what we're doing actually sustainable? McGlynn has shown his system is sustainable over League One (also going undefeated I think?), Championship, promotion pressures, initial relegation pressure in being one of the favourites to go back down, and also squad turnover. What he's done with Falkirk is remarkable. I know the trendy option is to look for coaches who look the part and have umlauts in their name, but I do think we could honestly do much worse than John McGlynn. But the fact he's Scottish and looks like the guy your auld da talks to down the bookies definitely works against him, I think.

I look forward to seeing a 38 year old Kenny McLean and Grant Hanley included, despite not even playing club football, with Clarke commenting how impressive they've looked during kickabouts with their kids in the garden.

It'll be interesting to see how Olly Whyte factors in this coming season. With that extension signed and his successful loan period last season, I'd hope to see him get some minutes in our midfield this season. I admit to not seeing much of him, but from what I've heard, he has a lot of qualities that could see him eventually fit into the midfield and how we play. I guess it'll depend on whether he's quite ready to show the consistency and decision-making under pressure that anyone playing in our midfield requires. I'm not sure another loan spell is needed, as there's few teams in the lower leagues that play how we do, so it wouldn't be worth it from that viewpoint. And he's already shown that he's physically capable of competing in senior football. I'd hope he sees time on our bench and gets some game time.

Looks like it may be more family-related than anything else, going by the social posts. If he's got a kid and fancies being closer to family, then no one can grudge him that.

Personally, I think there’s a middle ground here. I agree that “investment” is a word we need to be careful with. Motherwell simply isn’t the kind of club where someone comes in, puts money in, and gets a normal business return from profits. That’s just not how it works for clubs our size. The latest accounts show the club is in a reasonably solid position, but we’re not sitting on huge profits. So if an investor is coming in looking for dividends, control, security over assets, or some guaranteed route to make money, that’s where I’d be taking a long, hard look at their intentions. Where I do think there’s a difference is between bad investment and properly structured strategic investment. The Hearts/Bloom deal is interesting to me for that reason. Bloom put in something like £9.9m for just shy of 30%, but those are non-voting shares if I recall. Hearts/FoH also state that player trading revenue stays with the club, so it doesn’t look like he’s taking a direct cut of any transfers. His upside seems to be tied to the value and success of his stake, not stripping money out of transfer fees. When it comes to Motherwell, I’d be against selling control. Completely against it. But, I wouldn’t be against the right minority deal if it was properly protected. Something like: minority stake only fan control protected ideally non-voting shares no security over Fir Park no right to force asset sales no direct claim on transfer income clear exit terms clear limits on board influence money going into sustainable growth, not just short-term spending The above is very different from just handing the club over to someone. Hibs is probably a bit of a warning sign. Foley/Black Knight came in for 25% at £6m I think, but the relationship didn’t work out from what I read and the stake has now been bought back. That doesn’t prove outside investment is always a bad idea, but it does show that alignment is crucial. Money on its own isn’t enough if the investor’s model, timescale or expectations don’t fit the club. So I’d say organic growth should still be the base case. That’s the safest route, and we do seem to be in a better position now than we were during the car crash that was the Barmack discussion. But I also wouldn’t be shutting the door completely. If someone credible came in with capital, expertise, no demand for control, and a structure that protected the Society and the club, then I think we’d have to look at it seriously. The key for me is that we shouldn’t be looking for “an investor” in the generic sense. We should only be interested in a very specific type of potential partner. Basically, one who strengthens the club without owning the club. Which is hard to find.

It could be. But it probably isn't.

I think I read somewhere that he's one of, if not the best, distributor of the ball in his position in Scotland. Which is a huge part of the skillset clubs look for from a goalkeeper nowadays. There's a reason why clubs are sniffing around him.

But not with his particular skillset, which is a requirement for how we play now. Those better keepers from years gone by might not be a great fit for how we play today. In the past, it was basically a case of looking for someone who could stop shots and be decent coming for crosses. Changed days.

Any keeper who replaces Ward, if we sell him, will more than likely come with the same attributes.

Thing is, Hibs didn’t just decide he was worth £6m. They had a club in Serie A willing to actually pay it. Once that happens, we're negotiating in a different tier. That’s what drives the fee up. Similar to what happened with Lennon. With Maswanhise, as good as he’s been, we’re not quite in that position yet. The interest, from what I've seen, hasn’t reached that same level where multiple clubs from stronger leagues are pushing the price up. That could, and hopefully will, change, of course. You don’t get £5m because a player is “worth it” in theory. You get £5m because someone is willing to pay it, usually because they think they’re getting ahead of the curve. Profile matters as well, whether people like it or not. Bowie fits the classic mould clubs across Europe want. Big, physical, leads the line, can play as a focal point. That kind of striker is harder to find, so there’s a built-in premium there. Again, we might get a fee of around £5 million for Maswanhise, but it'll be market value that determines that, not us. Unless we're prepared to knock back anything below that and risk pissing off the player, his agent, and so on. A lot of moving parts, basically.

Could be that he's in a better mental state and feeling more confident playing back at home? I know we all tend to just think that success or less-than-success (I don't want to call it failure) is purely footballing, but being halfway around the world with family and friends in a different timezone can play a part. If he's happier out in Australia there maybe isn't much point in bringing him back.

From the admittedly limited times I've seen Chilvers, he seems technically clean, comfortable under pressure, and makes good decisions. But he’s not a player who directly influences matches regularly, and that’s the difference. If you look at it from our point of view, he’d fit the way we play under Jens from a structural point of view. He’d be fine in build-up, understands space, and would slot into the system without any real issues I think. But I’m not convinced he actually gives us something we don’t already have. He’s probably closest to Fadinger in profile, just maybe a bit safer and with far less upside. He improves the floor of the midfield, but I’m not sure he raises the ceiling, if that makes any sense? And if we’re looking to push on, what we probably need more of is goals and real impact from midfield rather than another tidy connector. So I get the appeal, and in the right setup he probably looks a good player again. I’m just not sure he’s the kind of signing that moves us forward in any meaningful way.

Even if we were to get a strong headline fee for someone like JT or Watt, it very rarely lands as a lump sum that can immediately be reinvested. More often than not, these deals are structured over a number of years, with staged payments and add-ons tied to appearances, performance, or team success. So while the “£X million” figure looks healthy on paper, the reality is that only a portion of that is available in the short term. It’s not always as simple as selling a player and having that full amount ready to spend in the same window. Young players are, by definition, not the finished product. Some develop, some plateau, and some fall away entirely. It’s easy to say they should stay, play regularly, and improve, but there’s just as much risk in that path as there is in moving on early. If a better financial offer comes in, especially from a higher level, it’s completely understandable for the player to take it. They’re being asked to secure their future, often on the back of a short window of opportunity. An agent will almost always frame it that way: take the deal, bank the money, and go and test yourself in a better environment, better facilities, potentially higher standards in training, and the chance to develop alongside stronger players. Jake Hastie is probably a good example of how this can play out. At the time, a lot of people felt he left too early. But looking at it now, he secured a four-year deal on wages we couldn’t have matched. When he came back on loan, and in his spells elsewhere, he didn’t really show that he was going to make it at our level. So from his perspective, he maximised his earning potential at the right time. The alternative could easily have been staying, not kicking on, and ending up at a lower level anyway, just without the financial security he got from that move. None of this is to say we shouldn’t want to keep our best young players as long as possible. Of course we should. But the reality is there are financial and career dynamics at play that make these situations far less black and white than they sometimes seem, especially from the players perspective.

It's that time again, where we look forward to a new season and discuss who's getting punted, how much we're getting for them, and who we're bringing in. Let the rumours and nonsense begin.

From the limited amount that I know, If a football manager is on an open-ended contract, all it really means is that there’s no fixed expiry date. It runs until one side ends it. The label itself doesn’t tell you much, I don't think. What matters is how the exit is drafted. Everything turns on the notice period, how termination is defined, and what compensation is triggered. If the deal says six months’ notice, then that is effectively the club’s exposure. If it allows pay in lieu, the club can end it immediately and settle the notice amount. If there are enhanced protections, minimum guarantees, or specific bonus treatments written in, that changes the equation. If there’s a mitigation clause, any new job the manager takes may reduce what he’s owed. That is where the substance sits I reckon. In football, most of the financial reality is likely driven by those mechanics, not whether the contract is open-ended or fixed-term. A three-year deal can offer far more security than an open-ended one if the payout on dismissal is stronger. Equally, an open-ended contract can still contain meaningful protections if negotiated properly. The drafting is everything. The same applies if the manager is doing well, such as Jens is now, and another club comes in for him. Open-ended does not mean he can just walk out the door from what I can tell. He is still under contract. If he resigns, he is bound by the notice provisions. In practice, mid-season departures rarely work like that. The interested club approaches the current club, permission is sought to speak, and compensation is negotiated. If there is a release clause or a clearly defined buyout mechanism, the process is cleaner. If not, the current club holds the leverage and can demand a fee or simply refuse to engage. So, for me, the distinction between fixed-term and open-ended is secondary. What actually determines power, protection, and financial exposure is how the exit terms are structured. That is where the leverage always sits.

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.