David

Aye, works on both.

Mate, you don't need to convince me. I'm not the one who's saying anything will happen, I just made the point that considering I don't really enjoy attending games against the scum anyway, on top of the grief it causes my other half, it makes far more sense to just sit home and watch it on the telly.

I use this - http://www.sportsmania.eu/sites/view.php?pg=home It works via your web browser, and you'll also have access to Sky Sports etc as well for the duration. You can see the game marked in their schedule (calendar) section.

Aye, I see us making some moves in midfield this summer.

Right you are.

For anyone who's interested, the game is being streamed live on AberdeenTV International today.

It's fuck all to do with me, is it? I can't help how she reacts? I think the fact that her da got bottled for being in the wrong pub at the wrong time when one of them was playing is what get's her worried (and he's not even a football fan). And I've seen plenty of folk from different age groups get shit from fans on both sides of the bigot brothers.

I avoid all games against the scum, it's simply not worth the hassle, not to mention that the missus worries about me until I get home, so a season ticket isn't value for me at all. PATG it is.

Aye, but that theory would apply to anyone that we decide to offer a contract to, wouldn't it? In fact, it could be argued that at least with our own young players the manager has something of an idea of how good they are, whilst bringing in someone from down south is a risk. My main point here is that I don't see the point in letting Moore go if he wants to stay, only so we then have to go and find someone from outside the club to replace him as a backup striker. If there's already someone coming through the ranks below Moore that is ready for the opportunity, then fair enough. But if not, then I'd rather we kept someone who we know, and who's done the business this season, albeit at a lower level.

I'm not quite sure that's the case, to be honest. If someone comes through our youth system over the next few years who is good enough to make the jump into the first team, or who is even deemed to be better than Craig Moore by the management team then they'll simply leapfrog him, resulting in him either being content to slide down the pecking order and eventually released by the club, or he'll ask to be moved on. I'm not advocating giving Craig Moore a contract over one of our younger lads who are coming up behind him, I'm simply saying that the idea that we need to go out and trawl the lower reaches of the English game to find someone who can come up here and sit on the bench and perhaps push for a first team start when injuries and suspensions come into play is counterproductive to our supposed policy of bringing through youth. That youth can either be Moore or someone else from our system. I'm just using Moore as an example at the moment because he seems to have accomplished what we always want our younger players to do when they go out on loan. He's performed. We need to be smarter now with our signings, especially considering where our money is coming from. If someone isn't going to improve our regular first team (McDonald), or isn't a younger player with a whole lot of potential (Moult) then we don't need them, unless there's a shortage of youth players coming through. Sure, Moore may not make the cut long-term, but for the moment he's a decent backup and he deserves the chance to give it a go. We don't need another Wes Fletcher or Theo Robinson sitting around doing nothing except keeping our younger boys from coming through.

Yeah, if Moore wants to leave then that changes the entire dynamic of the point I was making, but the main crux of my argument is that just because he's not going to displace McDonald or Moult at the moment doesn't mean he should be let go. We need around 4 strikers for the 2 slots available, with the other 2 playing as & when required. Not to mention, there'll come a time when both McDonald and Moult are no longer at the club, and hopefully someone like Moore will be ready to make the step up by that point.

And a lot of people feel that way, but surely if we're looking to convince those fans who are on the fence to put their money into the club early on rather than throughout the season (when there's a chance they may end up not bothering at all) maybe we should be looking to give them a reason? A season ticket should provide something of a reward to those who put their cash into the club in a lump sum. If we continue to rely solely on the idea that buying one makes you a part of "the Motherwell family" then we won't see much progress, unfortunately.

And what happens in case of injury or suspension? It's a long season. Wouldn't it be good to have a young player who's just won a young player of the year award and has scored a goal every other game with Ayr ready and willing to step in and do a job? We need a squad of players for the coming season, not just a starting eleven.

Don't get me wrong, if Fletcher is deemed unsuitable or doesn't want to stay, then that changes things. I certainly believe that Moore has earned himself a crack at the club though.

If we secure the services of McDonald for next season and manage to retain Moult then that should be our first choice forward line going into the new campaign. However, this idea that a player such as Moore is done if he can't break into the first team and be a regular is a bit off in my opinion. Why get rid of Moore only to go out and sign someone else to play backup to our starting players? Isn't the idea supposed to be that our young guys are given a chance? That chance is surely a progression from being on loan to challenging for a first-team spot and operating from the bench, getting game time whenever possible? Moore seems to have impressed at Ayr, so why not offer him a new deal (if he wants to stay, of course) and let him play backup to our current partnership and try to break into the side? If both him and Fletcher are happy to recommit to the club this summer then I'd keep them on. Clarky is likely on his way, so that would leave us with four strikers competing for two slots, which seems reasonable to me. We need to stop getting to the end of the season and looking to sign players when we have guys in our current set-up who can do the job. Unless someone is considered a player who can either come right into the first team or someone of immense potential, or if it's a position we're currently light on then we don't need them.

He's 21 now, so I'd say he's not a boy.

I'd like to think that if such a perk was to be used to recruit Well Society members that they'd simply upload the entire game. I'm assuming they film it in its entirety and cut it to suit for highlights? If so, just pap the whole thing up a few days later or whatever.

Aye? Well, that sucks, especially when we get 30 seconds from the BBC.

So, does anyone know who's actually out of contract at the end of this season? According to what I've saw it's; Connor Ripley (end of loan deal) Craig Samson Stephen McManus Stevie Hammell Ben Hall Keith Lasley Jack Leitch James McFadden Scott McDonald Wes Fletcher David Clarkson Craig Moore Morgaro Gomis (end of loan deal) Anyone I've missed out or mentioned in error?

Anyone know why there were no extended highlights on the YouTube channel for this game?

You cut out the second part of my point there, which kind of addresses why we should keep those two players in particular. Isn't the general idea to try and bring through our own youth? To do that we'd be better keeping the experienced heads in certain positions (especially if they're still doing a job, and Lasley especially is still doing a job) to help bring the younger guys along, wouldn't we? If we ditch Lasley and Hammell at the end of the season it's only going to leave two large holes in our side that we may not be able to fill adequately from elsewhere. Both guys are still good enough to provide something in my opinion, even if they aren't playing every game these days.

Figured it's time for a new thread. To address the points made regarding Lasley, Hammell & McManus in the old thread, why would we want to just punt them? If all three are happy to sign the deals offered, and if both Hammell and Lasley understand that they're not going to be first choice picks every week then what's the problem? We're looking to bring youth into the equation, and having those experienced heads on the park sometimes and also in the dressing room will be vital to making that plan work.

When only three of the five guys advertised who actually played in the cup final in question show up I don't know if we can question the attendance of those who had to pay to be there.

I agree. Any time I've seen him he's been solid and unspectacular. Never really seen him look terrible.

I'd be guessing that once we cover costs and suchlike any player sales will allow us to invest in the team by way of offering better contracts to certain players, or maybe even investing in a transfer fee for a young player we could maybe sell on down the line.