David

You'd rather we lost and were eliminated from the cup because it may result in the manager being sacked?

Who gives a toss about actual facts? Blame it on Baraclough if it means we can pile on with more stick and abuse.

I was under the impression that guys like Cadden were going to be drafted in? Remember all the cutting of cloth and focusing on youth patter? I seriously doubt that Cadden could do much worse than some of the impostors we have playing on a weekly basis.

I don't see many changes. Baraclough must know he's running low on chances to get this right, and a decent cup run could be the difference between him losing or keeping his job. I see us going into this game with an attacking mentality. As for an actual line-up? Who knows at this stage.

Considering the team isn't really playing well at the moment I think he should be hammering that door down with a battering ram.

A goal after 70 odd minutes from Robbie Leitch today saw us beat Thistle under 20's 1-0 at Fir Park. The team was; Morrison, McMillan, Ferguson, Maguire, Hall, Campbell, Watters, Leitch, Mackin, Hastie, Cadden Subs: Potts, Falconer, Livingstone, Watt, Turnbull We weren't really up to much in the first half, with Thistle doing most of the attacking, but we took over in the 2nd I feel. Young Cadden looked to be head & shoulders above the rest from where I was sitting, and Hall & Leitch looked good as well. Perhaps also worth mentioning that the gaffer was there, so he's still in a job (for now, anyway). Good to see Lasley on the park with the youngsters before the game as well.

Aye, one of things that I always took pride in with the Motherwell fan base was that we weren't a side who attracted support based on any one particular religion, set of beliefs or political campaign. You support Motherwell simply because of your love for the team. I understand the forum members sentiment, but the stark reality is that not everyone wants to welcome refugees with open arms, and each person who thinks that way has their own reasons for it. It doesn't make anyone right or wrong, of course, and debates on the matter will be had up and down the country no doubt. Saying that, I've always liked the fact that when you walk through those turnstiles you leave all of that outside and you're essentially a Motherwell fan. Be it Catholic/Protestant, Muslim/Sikh, Unionist/Nationalist, Labour/Tory, black/white or whatever, you don't have to conform to a particular set of beliefs to support Motherwell. It's refreshing, it's something that a lot of our support hold very dear in my opinion (and is the reason why we see a backlash to any suggestions of veering off that path I think), and it's something that separates us from the Glasgow clubs. Anyway, that's my opinion on it. I hope the Well Bois continue as they have done, and that we see many more Motherwell-related banners that everyone who supports the club can stand behind.

I was always one of Baracough's defenders last season, going with the belief that he needed a full summer and the opportunity to bring in his own players and ship out some of the ones he didn't fancy. I said I'd judge him after that. That time is almost upon us, and I have to say that the results don't look promising. It's not just the actual results themselves, but the way in which we've managed to play the games. There's never been a time when I've walked away thinking "we're on the cusp of turning this around, the team looks like it's starting to click" I've found the transfer policy during the summer to be confusing at best. I'm also not sure what happened to the plan that we heard about cutting our cloth and all that? I assumed we'd use the opportunity that we got in the summer to offload a lot of our deadwood and relatively high earners to start bringing down the money being spent in that area? Instead we've seen seemingly stupid signings of players that likely won't be featuring, and loan signings where I believe our own youngsters could have stepped up. For example, do we really need five forwards? Wouldn't we be better served having Craig Moore on the bench rather than David Clarkson? Is Jake Taylor really all that better than what we have already? None of that really made any sense. Anyway, as I said, even for someone who believed the manager deserved time to put together his own side I think the time to judge him is not too far away. and it doesn't look good.

Thing is, he did what a lot of people wanted him to do today. He dropped McDonald (who no one thought he could drop!), yet still we don't get the result. I'm actually beginning to think that the players themselves are the imposters, rather than the manager.

The problem I have is that whilst the manager is certainly responsible for his part in how the season has went thus far, the way in which certain players seem to have just downed tools is pretty galling.

Let's hope that the upcoming generation don't have the same attitude that a lot of the older generation have, who seemingly want to sit and watch their football in silence, frowning upon any kind of excitement or noise.

For the time being, possibly.

The squad at the tail-end of last season provides a skewed example though, because Les had come in and the manager had been given funds to bring in seven extra players in January, which I'm willing to bet would not have been possible had we been relying on funds generated by the actual club rather than the new owner. Look, all I'm saying is that whilst it's certainly all very exciting seeing these guys being brought in from down south, I'm just wondering where the money is coming from. It was made known that before the new owner came in we were walking a financial tightrope already, that if we'd continued as we were and Les hadn't come in we would have been in deep shit basically. I don't see how, even if you're right about the incomings being around the same as the outgoings, that's a good thing? We were supposed to be downsizing, not maintaining or even increasing our wage bill. My main fear is that when Les comes to the end of his time with the club and asks for the Society to step up that he also says "oh, and there's X amount due to be paid back to me on top of the original loan due to me forking out cash for loan signings and decent prospects from down south". The Society is looking like it's already hitting a plateau of sorts already, and the question I have is will the level it's sitting at be enough to finance the club as it is? There was a lot of chat about cutting our cloth accordingly, and thus far I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest we're doing that on the playing side of things.

No, my main point in this thread is that rather than relying on the younger players we already have under contract we're finding money from somewhere to finance a loan deal for a Welsh international who plays for Reading. Don't get me wrong, if Les is happily footing the bill for these types of signings then fine, I've not got a problem with it, but if this money he's spending is being tallied up and is going to be added to what we have to pay him at the back-end of this deal we have with him then it's an issue, isn't it? I'm not questioning the ability of the players we're bringing in, because obviously they seem to have the pedigree, but what I'm questioning is the fact that we seem to have completely deviated from the "self-sufficient, cut our cloth to fit with what we bring in" motto that I'm sure I heard mentioned when Les first arrived. I may be losing the plot, but I thought the idea was to dump a lot of the relatively high earners during the close season and try to bring in a few well thought-out signings with sell-on potential and start giving our academy players a shot? Isn't that how a club our size manages to operate in a self-sufficient manner? We've brought in almost as many players as we let go, including David Clarkson and Scott McDonald, who won't be cheap I'd guess.

Who are you talking to here? I didn't mention anything about McDonald's fitness?

That's a one-off though, isn't it? I'm talking more about us looking at the money we actually bring in and cutting our cloth to reflect it. As I said, I could be wrong, but I don't see that happening.

This is kind of my point. Whilst it's great seeing fringe England under 21 goalkeepers coming in on loan, and exciting young talent from down south being signed up, I'm a bit worried about who is going to end up paying for all this? It certainly appears that we're spending way more than we're bringing in. Wasn't the idea supposed to be to get a lot of high earners off the wage bill during the summer, tighten down on the squad and cut our cloth accordingly? So that when the time comes where Les decides he's had enough we actually have a squad that we can afford to pay without banking on a cup run or a 2nd place finish? That's why I'm wondering why we're signing Welsh internationals on loan from Reading when we should be pushing our own affordable players into the team. Unless of course these players are playing for next to fuck all, in which case my worries are unfounded.

The thing is, at the end of the season we let go of 11 players, and we've now brought in 9 replacements if my math is correct, along with re-signing 2 key players. I could be wrong, but I can't see the guys we've brought in being on less money than the players we've let go, not to mention the seven new guys we brought in last January, so my question is, where is the money for all of this coming from? I know Les has cash to burn, but is he basically throwing this cash into the club and not worrying about any return? Or is this all part of the loan we're getting and are expected to pay back via the society eventually?

Before I go any further this isn't a thread about our results thus far this season, there'll no doubt be enough chat about that elsewhere. What I was wanting to talk about is the transfer policy of the club moving forward. In the run up to the end of last season we knew that a whole load of players contracts were up, and that a lot of them wouldn't be coming back. This was going to open the door for the manager to bring in some new players under the new ownership blueprint of bringing in players we can eventually move on at a profit, which I think is great. We've brought in some good prospects, most of whom are in their early 20's, such as Moult, Chalmers, Fletcher, Laing & Kennedy. We've also added Scott McDonald to the side, bringing experience and a bit of class. What I'm wondering is where the idea of us bringing through our own youngsters is going to fit in with this? I know it's early doors, but it seems to me that the young guys who are knocking on the door of the first team have been pushed to the back of the line again. I don't expect them to walk right in and take a starting position away from an established player, but I thought the idea was to bring them in when we suffer injuries and suchlike? Pearson is out for a good few weeks, and after his injury against Inverness young Leitch got his opportunity, replacing Pearson for the entire second half virtually, and then also playing for 80 odd minutes against United the following weekend. Then on the day before the Hearts game the club sign Jake Taylor on loan, and despite only being here for a day he immediately goes into the starting line up against Hearts and young Leitch is back on the bench. The same thing happened to Twardzik, where he played all of our pre-season games (and did quite well by all accounts) only to see a keeper come in on loan the day before we play our first league game and replace him immediately. Now, I know there'll be people who say "fuck him, he's pish" and all that jazz, but that's not going to do his confidence any good, is it? Which isn't ideal if Ripley picks up a knock or decides he wants to fuck off home in January. And what about the signing of Clarkson? He didn't look great for the most part at Dundee, he has virtually no real sell-on potential but yet we're playing with him on our bench, coming on for the last 10-15 minutes in matches whilst Craig Moore has been fucked off to Ayr United. The truth is, apart from Leitch getting that game against United before he got bumped for Taylor I've seen fuck all by way of progress in bringing through some of our younger guys, such as Dom Thomas, Leitch, Moore, Ferguson or Cadden. I dunno, it just seems like the same shite when it comes to our younger players, only this time they're being kept out of the side by different names, some of whom don't look all that special if I'm being honest.

Along the lines of what I was coming into the thread to say. We most likely won't be competing with the likes of Hearts, Dundee United & Aberdeen this season, so although I'd love for us to be taking points off them I'm not going to lose the plot if we don't. Our bread & butter this season is the teams you mentioned, Kilmarnock, Partick, Hamilton and St Johnstone possibly.

After seeing Hearts promoted last season, if you'd told me that we'd win the play-off tie with Rangers and would still be an SPFL team this season I'd likely not have been confident of us getting anything from Tynecastle, but I'm actually feeling optimistic. I'll go for a narrow win, or a draw at worst.

I wonder why they don't simply get the guy who draws up the posters to allow them to use the same images on the programme? Those posters are excellent for the most part.

Isn't the idea supposed to be a smaller 1st team squad with a view to bringing through more homegrown young players? If that's the case, surely one of those young players will step up in Pearson's absence? It kind of negates the whole ethos of what we're trying to do if every time a key part of our first team squad gets injured we simply bypass the young lads and head right for a loan deal from down south or something similar.

Fucking hell Skippy

Aye, so it seems. I was just hoping that someone had a link to one of those obscure radio channels that covers the odd game here & there.