David

We're due a goal from Bair I think. I had him down as scoring a whopping four for us this season, so he should be good for one around now.

Well, just like you and every other Motherwell fan, I've not seen much of Oxborough. But, the manager and the coaching team has. They see him every single day. And over the 18 months that he's been at the club he's rarely kicked a ball, which tells me all I need to know. I think when his contract ends he'll quietly disappear into obscurity. Would I drop Kelly? The answer is no. Because the one thing the manager has going for him right now is that the team is still together and fighting for him. Dropping Kelly, the captain, and clearly someone who is well-liked and influential in the dressing room for a keeper who has hardly played a game for us could affect that dressing room dynamic. Fans don't really think about that aspect of the choices a manager has to make. They just think "player A has been rubbish of late, punt him out the team, and get someone new in." It's never that simple, sadly. The decisions made will affect the moral and general vibe of the team and could turn players against the manager, and dropping your captain is always going to be a huge move. Dropping Kelly right now wouldn't be for "a wee spell." Doing that would basically signal the end of his Motherwell career. He wouldn't be coming back from that in all likelihood. You'd be stripping him of the captaincy, dropping him, and opening a can of worms in the wider squad that I think could cause more issues. It's a tough situation, because Kelly is definitely going through a rough spell. The manager has one of two choices to make. Drop Kelly, strip him of the captaincy, bring in a keeper that neither he nor the manager before him has considered anywhere near good enough to this point, and risk the dynamic of the dressing room being turned on its head, possibly against the manager. Or stick with Kelly, and gamble that his form will return. By doing so the manager would win the support of the players and the captain by showing that he is the type of gaffer who sticks by his players when they're going through a tough spell. That action would ensure that the squad keep fighting for him I think. So, for me, it's option number 2. And I know many fans won't agree, which is fine.

Or, like most humans, they react with a "Is that right? Well, f*ck you!" attitude. Which isn't ideal. What is for sure is that absolutely no one ever got dogs abuse from someone and thought "Man, I really want to win for this guy!"

Sounds like an ideal move. I'm sure any player brought back when they didn't want to come back would be a brilliant addition to a squad fighting relegation.

What makes you think he wants to come back?

Yeah, but there are not many businesses or organisations that take into account the views of their paying customers when it comes to the managerial appointments they make. Me buying Tetley tea bags on the reg for example wouldn't have them listening to my views on who their Head of International Sales should be. I fully believe that clubs should understand and have sympathy for fans who spend money travelling to watch the team, and who are not happy with how results and performances have gone. However, actively listening to fan's opinions when it comes to making managerial changes is asking for trouble. Because, most fans, including me, don't really have the first clue as to what it takes to manage a football team.

Of course the fans have a right to complain. And the board and the people who are actually paid money to work in the game have the right to ignore the unqualified opinions of said fans. There's a reason why we're posting on a forum and paying money to get into games, while managers and players are being paid to actually take part.

Oxborough is clearly the number 2. A backup, only needed if Kelly gets injured or is suspended, neither of which has happened in quite some time. Him not playing doesn't mean he's not good enough, it means that the manager (and the managers we had before Kettlewell) prefer Kelly. I guess they could all be wrong though, along with our international manager who selects him routinely.

Oh, if we can find some way to remove Paton, Bair, Wilkinson and Obika from our squad I'd be all for it. It will prove difficult though. Shaw is away at the end of the season, is he not? Yes, that's fair. I think they are good enough for the league, but I just think we've reached a point where it's time for a change. I'd say that someone like Kelly may need a fresh challenge and a new environment to kick on as well. I think the past few years have jaded me slightly, and I'd like to see a complete reboot. That includes cultural, management, board level and players.

Kettlewell knows that his job is hanging by a thread, so the last thing he's going to do is drop the captain and someone who clearly holds a lot of sway in the dressing room. At the moment it seems like the players are still very much behind the manager. Dropping Kelly and making an example of him could change that in a hurry and simply add to his problems.

If the club wants it, this summer could really be a watershed moment and a changing of the guard so to speak. The following players are out of contract: Liam Kelly Aston Oxborough Bevis Mugabi Stephen O'Donnell Paul McGinn Calum Butcher Callum Slattery Blair Spittal Jonathan Obika I'd be looking long and hard at how the club has performed throughout the above player's stays and would argue that there's very little reason to offer any of them an extension. Now is as good a time as any to get that new Director of Football or CEO in, and have them implement a style and philosophy of play and recruitment before we make any decisions on extensions or player recruitment.

100%. I know my recent posts in the transfer thread were lengthy, to say the least, but what really does my head in is that it wouldn't take a fortune to put such plans into place. It certainly wouldn't take the amount of money we've shelled out to send two managers home while looking to employ yet another. We're spending far more on rectifying mistakes made on an almost yearly basis. What we're working with right now is a scattergun approach. There doesn't seem to be any kind of planning or philosophy behind what we're doing. I mean, I could be wrong, I don't have access to the inner workings of the club, but I'd love to ask those who made the decisions what the thought process was behind moving from Graham Alexander to Stevie Hammell, then from Hammell to Kettlewell. What are the criteria for these hires? Is it simply a case of Hammell being chosen because he's a "Motherwell man" and was already at the club? Did Kettlewell get the job because he is articulate and sounds like he knows what he's doing? There has to be more to it than that, and for such a decision we need someone who is experienced in this department and has the final say on who gets the job. They can be supported by others who provide insight, data and opinions, but the final decision has to rest with someone who has done this before. One thing that any new Motherwell manager has to deal with is the fact that when he comes into a job in football it's unlike any other industry. He can't just evaluate the team he has and then cut loose those who don't fit with his way of working. If players are under contract it's not always easy to move them on, and they take up a wage that would otherwise be spent elsewhere. It works in cycles, which is why I tend to believe a manager needs three transfer windows, which is 18 months or so to get a handle on the team. But, we could negate the above issues by having an overriding club philosophy and way of playing, and then recruit coaches, managers and players to fit within that. I don't think we're doing that though. From what I've seen, we speak to managerial candidates, recruit them based on some other criteria, and then they come in with their own differing philosophy and try to implement that on a squad that often isn't fit for purpose. And that is a recipe for disaster because it means we're constantly in a state of flux. Of course, we'll hit a run of form or stumble upon a player or two who does really well, but most of the time that's the exception rather than part of the plan.

No one is suggesting that inaction is the way forward. It's just that some people see a different form of action other than bumping the manager, installing his assistant or the current youth coach, and trying to find a replacement before the transfer window opens in less than a month. Inaction will cost us, but so will a bad reaction.

I nearly spat my tea all over my laptop when I read that!

Then that maybe speaks to the people you associate with, because I know of no one, in "real life" or on this forum who would advocate for McFadden to get the job.

It won't matter. One keeper will be playing all the games anyway. Maybe two if there's an injury or suspension. Kelly will be the third keeper and won't play, much like he's done for his previous 3 million call-ups. Chances are Clarke sticks him in the squad for the reasons I mentioned above. There's no point in wasting time integrating someone new into the group when they aren't going to play anyway.

You could be right. It could even be the case that someone like a Stevie Frail could keep us up, but the issue I have there is that it's just a rinse and repeat of what we've done so far. If Frail, for example, kept us up, would he then get the job full-time? Beginning another cycle of where we got with Hammell and Kettlewell?

Honestly? I don't think whoever comes in next will fare much better. If we remove the ridiculous signing of Bair, the rest are pretty much what we've come to expect the past few years. Unless we make some serious changes in the recruitment process and personnel I don't know if changing managers will make much of a difference in that regard. What we do know is that this squad as it is has been partly shaped by Kettlewell and how he wants to play. Another manager may come in and decide he wants to use wingers and change things up, and I'm not sure we can really do that from a financial standpoint this winter.

It's not censorship. It's basically the same discussion at this point. He's still in the job. If and when he is relieved of his duties the discussion changes direction and he's longer a factor in it. When I say I don't think it's quite right, I don't mean from a personal perspective as far as my own feelings, I mean from the viewpoint that it's the same discussion.

You have modern "media training" to thank for all that. The club likely employs people who have raised alarm over what they've seen on social media (and even on here) and believe that pushing the captain in front of a camera to look solemn and offer empty words is going to help matters. It doesn't. As you say, they're not being accused of something heinous. They're footballers who aren't playing very well.

I think before we sack another manager we need to ask ourselves a few questions. 1. Are we realistically going to get someone else in before the end of the month? And by someone else, I mean an actual, proper candidate. Not Stevie Frail or David Clarkson. 2. Will another manager find himself in a position to make wholesale changes in January? Because the chances are that a new manager is going to want to change things up quite a bit, and this current squad is very much built to Kettlewell's specification, including no natural wingers, and very light on actual midfielders. 3. Is sacking yet another manager actually the answer? Is it the correct message to send out to the players, that whenever they find themselves in a situation where they underperform, they won't be held accountable? And that they'll be given a clean slate with a new manager? I think we need to take all of the above into account. For me, unless we have an outstanding candidate who is ready and willing to jump in straight away, there's no point in sacking Kettlewell. One thing we do know is that he's capable of getting something from this group of players. He did it before. Maybe he can do it again? I don't know if a fresh face for the sake of "something must be done!!!!" is the answer. EDIT: Also, I've merged the "new manager" thread with this one. I don't think it's quite right to be discussing a new manager as if it's a foregone conclusion when we still have a gaffer in the dugout.

There's every chance he might be given the January window to make things right. As incredible as that may sound to some people.

Nah, I think he'll be there. He won't play, of course, but he'll be there. Clarke is quite loyal to the players and squad that actually qualify. Kelly's been around the squad, he knows the players, the management, the processes, and all that. It could be argued that's more important than bringing someone brand new who isn't going to play either.

The Sun and The Record will just be punting the usual names. It's lazy journalism at its very best.

You're talking nonsense right there. Don't make the naive error of believing that because someone is a supporter of the club, isn't overly negative, and tries to see the positives that they're absolute morons. No one I have spoken to would want Faddy to get the job. At all. If he did get it, would they support him? Absolutely. Big difference there though.