David

This might be what has made him appealing. Much like regular double-digit goalscorers, clubs of our size and budget will struggle to sign an established "number 10", as creative players with that kind of ability generally don't have Motherwell high on their list of destinations. However, what we can do is bring in someone who has previously flirted with that kind of role and whom the coaching staff believe can be converted to playing there in the future, while also playing as a forward if needed.

It's not about who posts on social media, but what they post. If their posts on social media consist of exposing the extreme flaws in the executive boards logic behind supporting the Barmack offer, for example, then I certainly would take that into account when voting. The thing for me is that the board of the Well Society aren't tasked with executing business ideas. They're essentially guardians of the club. It's the job of the well-paid CEO and the team employed by the club to execute on business ideas. I want to elect a board that I can trust will not be daft enough to fall for the kind of nonsense that the former chairman and a few of his friends did. I want people who will safeguard fan ownership and ensure that any prospective investor looking for any kind of control is scrutinised in a manner that Barmack clearly wasn't. If someone can offer social media, marketing, accounting, or any other skill, they can be involved without being part of the board.

Posted this on P&B, and figured I may as well post it here as well... I thought I'd share a few reflections on my decision-making process for the Well Society board before I finalise my selections. The first thing I've noticed is that many people are basing their decisions on what individual candidates contribute in terms of work experience, career history, and so forth. For me, that isn't a primary concern. As we've already observed, we can engage those individuals and their skillsets through the workstreams and various other projects. We don't need someone on the board just to make use of their skills or experience. If we're honest, if it were about experience and contributions, then individuals like Douglas Dickie and Tom Feely should be an automatic choice every single time. Both are immensely experienced with skillsets beneficial to the board. No, for me there is one criterion that outweighs all others. When there's a tough decision to be made, such as the Barmack situation, where the executive board might be leaning in a direction that doesn't quite align with fan views or interests, can those on the Society board be trusted to stand firm and vote appropriately? Or will they be influenced by a brief visit to the "big" board's offices for a cup of tea and a biscuit? I don't want someone on the board because they can enhance marketing, financial stewardship, or anything similar. I want someone on the board because they truly understand fan ownership. I'm observing many candidates who are undoubtedly qualified in their day jobs and career experiences, and I've seen many of them actively engaging on the forums and social media over the past few weeks. However, when we were all debating with Erik at 11pm on a Friday night, tirelessly posting counterpoints, researching different business models, meticulously reviewing each line and the phrasing of various plans and heads of terms, and working on documents to chart a new course for the Well Society in the face of allegations of lacking experience or credibility compared to the Netflix chap, many of these individuals were notably absent. Of course, that could be due to circumstance. Were they too busy? Had family issues? All of which is perfectly understandable. But, maybe it's because they simply did not think Erik's proposal was all that problematic? Everyone will make their choices based on their own criteria. But for me, it doesn't really boil down to what a candidate has achieved in their career, what experience they have, or what they "bring to the table" in that respect. We have multiple workstreams for that. I'm more interested in what they contributed during perhaps the most critical non-footballing issue we've faced as a club in recent times. And what their actions would be should a situation like that arise again. There is already one individual who was very vocal about how he felt during that time, and for that reason he will never get my vote. I'm sure he may well be a perfectly nice guy, but on this particular issue I don't feel I can ever trust him, no matter what other life skills he may provide. If he's really behind the idea of fan ownership then he can sign up for a workstream. He doesn't need a board vote. Give me someone who has spent their entire working life on a building site and doesn't even own a shirt and tie, but who will do everything in their power to protect the club from the likes of Erik Barmack over someone like a Douglas Dickie. Those who were part of that process know who they are, and those particular individuals will have my vote this time around. They stood up and were counted when they could have very easily just sat back and did nothing. There's one individual in particular who did more than most, and that particular candidate will be the first name I add to my vote later today.

it does offer a cracking view of the game, to be fair.

If he was carrying any kind of injury and the medical staff green lit his participation then serious questions need to be asked of the medical team. I really doubt that was the case though. We need to remember that football is a physical sport. Injuries can happen, and they can happen for any reason.

We can't allow that to get in the way of yet another chance to moan like f*ck about the manager though.

All I'll say is thank God certain posters on this forum aren't actually in positions where they have any say at the club. We'd be bankrupt within a few years, paying the salary of around 4 managers per season, and paying a squad of senior players that would make Chelsea's squad look streamlined.

We're currently sitting with a first team squad of around 26 players. Yes, some of them are injured, but those injured players still need to be paid and their medical costs taken care of. They will all return at various points over the coming weeks and months, so we can't just keep spending money on new players. How big do we want our squad and wage bill to be? Even if the management decide they want to make some more signings, it'll be a hard sell on any new player when we ask them to come in and provide cover for an injured player, then they likely get papped out the team when said injured player returns. At most, I anticipate a few six-month loans before the transfer window closes, and even then, the calibre of these players might not be sufficient to satisfy the online critics.

Don't be shy, anything you have to ask her you can ask her out in the open 👀

I actually think if anyone is wishing to assign blame, then the medical team is just as viable a candidate as the manager, for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

That's fair enough, I just don't see what there is to disagree about? Unless you think the medical team aren't providing detailed fitness reports and recommendations on who should play? Or do you think they are and Kettlewell is just ignoring them? Or do you think the medical team is getting it totally wrong and advising the manager to play players who aren't fit? Again, I'm not posting my opinion here, so it's not a case of me being right. It's just how it usually works with clubs these days when it comes to the fitness of players.

I'm not offering an opinion on the matter. I am neither a qualified medical expert nor a manager privy to the players' fitness and capability data from the medical team. My point is that we, as supporters, can certainly hold opinions, but they are based on a fraction of the information required to make a sound judgement. Kettlewell would have selected the player based on details provided by the medical team. I seriously doubt he was informed the player was at risk of injury and decided to play him regardless. There will always be unforeseeable elements when it comes to fitness and the human body. However, the manager will have been thoroughly briefed beforehand about which players are deemed fit enough to play, and he is likely acting on that information. That is the role of the medical team. Fans (myself included) might well assign blame based on their personal views, and that's absolutely fine. Yet, they are very likely incorrect as they lack all the necessary facts and details. That's simply the way it is.

Ah, well, that completely overrides any professional opinions the manager would have gotten from the medical team. "Proof is in the pudding." 😂

I should have clarified that my reply to you in particular ended when I went on to say "as for the current lot of injuries." At that point I was just chatting in general. This is part of the issue I have with how fans are looking at this situation. We think that Callachan wasn't anywhere near ready for first team action. Based on what? We don't see him in training? We don't have the medical teams assessments to hand? If he's being picked to play it's because he's been cleared to do so.

Kettlewell would have brought him on after receiving advice from the medical team that he was fit to play. It's not just a case of the player saying he feels okay and the manager chucking him on and seeing what happens. Same with Slattery. The medical staff would have looked at him and given the manager and the CEO an appraisal that would have been used to decide on signing him again or not. Personally, I wouldn't have signed him again, but I don't think the manager was told that Slattery or anyone else was an injury risk and just went ahead and pushed the move through. The same goes for every new signing we made. There will have been detailed medical reports poured over by the medical team, examinations carried out, all manner of tests and suchlike. All of that will have been taken into account before a contract is signed. As for the current lot of injuries, a lot of it does just come down to luck. There's a lot more goes into what players do on a daily basis these days. They don't just pull up in their Ford Cortina's, stub out a smoke, and wander in to kick the ball about and run laps for a few hours anymore. There's strength and conditioning, there's tactical work, and so on. I'd be very surprised if the relevant personnel at the club aren't looking into the injuries, what caused them, and why.

Every single club, bar maybe Celtic, will face an injury crisis this season. We're just experiencing ours now. I've seen a whole lot of people use this as an excuse to be critical of players who we have hardly even seen as yet. Ross Callachan, Filip Stuparevic, and John Koutroumbis have all been written off as "crocks" by some. No surprises that it's the usual crew, of course, but still. Those players will come back, and we can judge them then once we've seen them on the pitch. I think most of them have the potential to do well for us, so while things aren't great for now, I'm certainly not panicking. I saw someone elsewhere claim that today's game was a game where we "simply had to" get something from it. Two games into the season. Two. Let that sink in. This is a chance for some of the younger lads to step up and show that they're worth a place when others come back. Wilson, Ross, Ferrie and Wells all could get some opportunities to show what they can do, which will be interesting in itself. Can any of them establish themselves as first team regulars? I'm also keen to see how Oxborough, Gordon, Seddon, Sparrow, Stama, Balmer, Hegyi, Kaleta, and Robinson do over the coming weeks and months. Let's be honest, if we're two games deep into a brand new league season with a whole bunch of new players to watch and you're moaning already? Might be time to start going to the rugby or ice hockey instead. This is one of the most exciting times in the season.

I personally think Blaney is more consistent than Lamie, and certainly than Mugabi. Sure, both of those guys were known to turn in a 8/9 out of 10 on occasion, but they dropped more 5/6 out of 10 than Blaney does. I'd rank Blaney as a 7/10 on most occasions, which I prefer.

Stephen Cameron requested that I repost this here for him. It's a post he made on P&B: 'Eye Tourettes' seems to be a thing. Apologies if if made anyone question if I need an intervention. Note to Self: Don't set a timer in the top right of your computer monitor. It's always a tough call to go to the safety of a script to get the whole message across or appear more comfortable speaking from the heart. I'll throw my hat in the ring on here now too. I also checked Google Maps and it appears I can offer attendance and assistance beyond Zoom calls (see above why this may be beneficial). The main thing is the majority of candidates seeking election are capable, bring a good mix of talent, local and can demonstrate they acted to protect the club. My main driver for applying is to ensure any roadblocks, slow walking or kicking the can down the road of true fan ownership do not resurface. Also happy to endorse Derek for re-election. Martin and Gavin will also get my other votes for the all the work done, with many others, in contributing to Our Club, Our Future. Still available on the WS website (Well Society Website - Our Club, Our Future). I was privileged to be asked to draft the Governance page (p17). Please find the link to the presentation I cite in the text and video. Happy to engage with anyone and advocate for anything including the sizeable Asian cuisine lobby .... I will be your champion. Society Season Ticket v1.0.pdf

He only goes to town on the manager and players online.

You often find, at least online, that those who are perpetually critical of Kettlewell are the very same individuals who spent most of their time criticising Alexander and Robinson. And they will eventually be critical of the next guy as well.

Well, not in person anyway. only behind a keyboard.

Didn't you do the same?

Just when you said there will be no excuses or hiding places, I take that to mean that if and when we hit that period, many would suggest the next step would be sacking the manager. I'm fairly certain we’ll hit an extended winless run this season at some point. The lack of depth when it comes to quality in our squad suggests that injuries will lead to a period where we don't perform well and results suffer. That is unless we're incredibly lucky and avoid many injuries this season, of course. In my opinion, Kettlewell has done a good job thus far. It's sometimes forgotten (or ignored by some) that he's a young manager still learning the job. Before coming to us, he’d had six months as a manager on his own. This upcoming season is only his second full season as a manager, and he’s only just turned 40 years old. Sure, he likes to talk, but I'd take that any day over one of the "boys" who get managerial jobs in this country and can't string two sentences together without resorting to clichés that say absolutely nothing. Sacking a manager should always be an absolute last resort. The upheaval it causes at the club is immense, from seeing fellow coaches leave and player routines being disturbed, to a new manager coming in with different ideas and different requirements regarding the playing staff. Interestingly enough, we sacked Graham Alexander two years ago today, and the chaos and upheaval we've experienced since then hasn't been good. We're only now really getting back to something resembling normalcy.

The thing is, it has taken Kettlewell this long to get the team looking like he wants them to look. If we then sack him a few months into this season, we hire a new coach who then comes in and the whole process begins again. I think continuity is key. The recent chopping and changing of managers has done us no good at all. I was being sarcastic.

Agreed. County is an absolute must-win. If we don't get all three points there we're surely favourites for the drop?