David

And yet we had a fair amount of fans on this forum claiming that playing an extra midfielder in Paton and having Mika up top on his own was the way to go. It's very easy to come in and claim something isn't the way to go after the game has played out. Our problem today wasn't getting players into positions where they had a chance to score. It was actually putting the ball in the net, and there's nothing the manager can do about that.

Honestly, I've just logged on and read over the past two or so pages and I wonder if God created football so greetin'-faced men had something to moan about 😂

What change would you make?

You can certainly hope for failure, as you seemingly do from every manager we have for some reason, but I don't think he sounds like a man who'll be walking away.

Ah, I see. I thought the discussion was centred around the fans having an actual say in the direction the club would take in these matters. If it's just being informed that our representatives on the board are voting a certain way then fair enough, we wouldn't need all the information. Aren't the members views asked for and discussed at meetings? Or do you mean taking another approach? As for who makes the decisions, I assumed that as a collective, we voted for several representatives to sit on the board. Surely then those individuals are provided with a mandate to vote on behalf of the society? Yes, the basic details were made available, but the point I'm making is that if it comes down to an actual decision to be made on the matter, it would take more than basic details to make an informed decision? Surely at that point, we'd be relying on the individuals that we have voted to represent us on the board to make the correct call? I don't think the way to deal with such situations is for the entirety of the society to have a vote on the matter because the only way that could be done correctly is for everyone to be provided with all the information. I agree with most of this statement. We elect representatives for a reason, and that reason is so that the in-depth details are only then shared with those individuals along with the club board. I don't really have much of an issue with the Society, except for accountability. I'd like to see those that we elect being more pro-active as far as keeping the wider membership base updated. I'll be honest, I have toyed with the idea of running in the past (you at the back, stop laughing!) with the primary aim of doing so to open the channels of communication between the club and the Society Members. A monthly email written up and sent to all members detailing exactly what has happened that month, what has been discussed, and also full transparency on my own feelings and voting intentions if applicable. Comms have been poor since Alan Burrows left, but that wouldn't stop the Society reps we have elected from being more proactive on the information front. They may not be privy to everything that's going on, but something is better than nothing. The current newsletter is really just basic fluff, wrapped around a request for more people to sign up. So, I'm one of those people you're talking about when you say "It's nought to do with me, try someone else" because for all my good intentions I've never actually gotten around to putting myself forward. I'm guessing a lot of others are in the same boat.

While I'm not an expert, it seems likely that the specifics of such a deal would include confidential information, particularly from Dalziel's perspective. It's uncertain whether the club could share such information with the general public. If they couldn't, would the broader Well Society membership be able to make well-informed decisions? Similar to the previous point, obtaining comprehensive information might be challenging, given the reluctance of the club and external entities to disclose certain details publicly. At that point, we might find ourselves in a situation where individuals are casting votes without possessing a full understanding of the relevant facts. Executing a proposal of this nature for Society members likely involves more complexities than many of us realise. One thing I'd say is that I'm not 100% certain that the club aren't already carrying these ideas out. Granted, if they are they're not doing it very well, but still. I don't see it exactly in that way, but the truth is, most of us, myself included, lack the qualifications to make decisions of that nature. That's why we elect representatives to the board to act on our behalf. I do share the sentiment of holding those board members more accountable. There's a noticeable lack of communication from them. I believe it would be beneficial to have more transparency about their decisions – not necessarily revealing all the details of discussions but at least helping us understand what topics they are voting on as board members and how they cast their votes. It's similar to the accountability we expect from politicians. Currently, it feels like we choose a few individuals, they get elected, and then we seldom hear from them again.

I wasn't entirely sold on Kettlewell to begin with, and some of his signings have been questionable at best, but there's a different vibe and feel from the team at the moment. It doesn't seem like a situation where the manager is out of options, isn't being backed by the players and a new guy is needed. It feels different from the Hammell and Alexander situations. It even feels different from the end of Robinson's reign. That might just be me though.

Not really. I've never liked the term, I've always preferred the title "fan-backed" rather than "owned." Most of us aren't qualified to run a business of the magnitude of a football club, and when the barrier to entry for the society is so low that is even more of an issue. We're basically provided with the opportunity to help secure the future of the club, play a very small part in the direction it goes in, and can sleep easy at night knowing that it won't fall into the hands of some con artist with bad intentions.

Although not the silver bullet that would solve all issues, we have Robbie Mahon out on loan at Edinburgh City, where he has put in some man-of-the-match performances, notched two assists and scored three goals. I'd maybe look to pull him back in January and see what he can do. The problem is that Kettlewell has made it clear he doesn't really use wingers in his preferred setup. Can he adapt? That's the question I guess.

I can't help but think that Mika would benefit more from a system that employs wingers.

On top of that, he's playing for a new contract, either with us or elsewhere. His deal is up in the summer, and in his current form, I'm not sure if he'll have a whole host of clubs vying for his signature.

That won't matter, because you'll undoubtedly be on the next manager's case before too long, same as you were with past managers.

I don't think he needs to be protected. He's a 27-year-old professional goalkeeper who has represented his country and played over 230 senior games, almost 100 of them for Motherwell. It's on him to work his way out of this. The manager backs him. His teammates back him. Also, he's not playing to his usual level, but he's not been terrible. He's in the same boat as the rest of the team, he's not playing very well. He's being exposed by a terrible defence, and a non-existent midfield on occasion. He's made some right howlers this season, but he's also saved us on numerous occasions.

Will taking the captaincy off him help him though? And more to the point, is the upside of doing that far higher than any potential downside? Let's have a look. Take the captaincy off Kelly - Basically, kick the guy when he's down. He's lost form just now and needs to rebuild some focus and confidence. Is stripping him of the captaincy going to assist in that? I don't think so. Also, regardless of how we feel about him, he's seemingly well-liked and very respected in the dressing room. He goes out of his way to welcome new signings and basically does everything you'd want a captain to do. Will walking into the dressing room and taking the armband from him affect the rest of the squad? Could that kind of move be the very thing that quickly changes a squad that's working for each other and the manager to an unhappy squad? Is it worth the risk for Kettlewell? I'm not sure it is. Leave the captaincy on Kelly - I get what you're saying about the likes of Butcher, but we're not seeing the whole picture. While we may look at Butcher and think "he's a defender/midfielder, he looks like a captain, and he shouts a lot. That'll do for me!" it's also worth remembering that we don't even know if he'd want to be the captain. Again, if stripping Kelly leads to a disgruntled squad, would you want to be the guy who takes over when your teammates are pissed off that their captain has basically had his baws cut off in front of everyone? I know it's a cliche, but regardless of O'Donnell, Butcher, Casey, or whoever else people think should be captain actually having the armband, I expect them to all be captains. They don't need an armband to encourage and drive their teammates on. They can do that regardless. Once they cross the line onto the park they can all influence the game as captains in their own right. It all depends. If we had a Mark Gillespie on the bench then there's definitely a discussion to be had. If we'd seen Oxborough brought in for cup games, and even the odd league game and he'd looked very good, again, a discussion to be had. But he hasn't. He's looked relatively poor when I've seen him, and the manager and coaching team see him every day and have never really looked like picking him. I'm not in favour of dropping our first-choice goalkeeper and captain just to be seen to be doing something. Especially when Kelly is still winning points for us. Aye, he's making the odd error here and there, which is to be expected when the defence in front of him is as leaky as a council tap, but he's also saving penalties at Celtic Park, and stopping one on one shots that end in us snatching a point rather than nothing. He's definitely not in top form, but even in middling form, Kelly is still a good keeper.

Yes, but wasn't that due to his attitude? If Kelly had been petulant, or had been showing a stinking attitude then I'm sure many of us would think differently. But he hasn't. He's just suffering a dip in form. If Ronaldo had just suffered a dip in form he wouldn't have been dropped.

Well, the fact that he's hardly kicked a ball in 18 months would suggest exactly that. Chalk another great find up for the recruitment team!

Horrific? Seriously? 😂 Aye, his form hasn't been great, but he's not been "horrific." I think some folk are getting carried away now. If you think what I and others have been saying about not dropping someone like Kelly is all about "not hurting someone's feelings" then you're not reading it right. Simple as that.

And if he starts and does what he usually does when he starts for us? What then? Drop him for Obika next game? Then if Obika doesn't put in a good enough performance we drop him and put Bair back in, and onwards into infinity.

We need to settle on a striking partnership and give them a run. Whoever it is. Chopping and changing every week won't work.

Yesterday. A six. At most.

Have we forgotten that Bair isn't a striker though? Or are we back on the "Bair train" because he provided a cross for a goal? Like I said, if we go down the route of constantly chopping and changing the lineup we're going to get nothing. I don't really know of any teams that see success constantly changing their players around based on how they do in a single game. For me, it's Obika and Mika up top as our first choice. It's not ideal, but I think that's the best we have. Wilkinson can try to fight his way back into that equation, and Bair is there as a sub we can throw on when we need a big, athletic guy who can cause issues late in games.

He doesn't make that second save and we get nothing from the game. Also, he doesn't save that penalty against Celtic at Celtic Park and we could have gotten hee haw from that game as well. The point I'm making is, aye, he makes mistakes. If he didn't he wouldn't be at Motherwell. But, if we're going to batter the guy for his errors, then it's only fair that we mention how good he also is at times.

And if we're going to give him absolute pelters when he makes a mistake it's only fair we give him credit when he pulls off a good save.

The only problem I have with that is that we're constantly chopping and changing our forward pairings. One week we all want Obika back fit so he can play up front with Mika, then after one or two games we don't get what we want from that partnership so now we want Bair instead of Obika, then if that fails we'll want something else. Striking partnerships need time to gel. I think if we're going with Obika and Mika then we need to give them a run of games.

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.