MelvinBragg

Looks like Hammell's staying if you believe the latest posts, so it could be 1-2 leaving. Given McGarry has at least made the bench in a few games, you have to figure that Lasley and Fitzpatrick are the guys furthest from first team action (Darren Smith is injured). I can see why Fitzpatrick might attract clubs (young, low wages I'd imagine) but I can't think of any SPL club that would be coming in for Lasley. Maybe Killie but they're skint...

I'm not saying it was 5% who were singing it on Saturday. I'm saying that 5% of fans I know could be perceived (not by me) as scum by some due to their behaviour. I'm not trying to out anyone, Frazzle, and I hope you don't think I'm leading some kind of witchhunt (you know it's not my style). If I disagree with what someone says at the football, I tend to speak my mind (ie tell them to "Shut the fuck up!!"). And as I've already said I'm not horrified or disgusted by the paedo songs (perhaps I should be, maybe I've been going to the football too long) but I do think it was a wee bit unnecessary and painted us in a bad light...

Wouldn't be stunned to see one of McGarry, Lasley or Fitzpatrick go given we have midfielders coming out of ears. I suppose as the youngest Fitzpatrick might attract the most attention. I don't know if I agree with Lobey though. Letting one of them go is one thing, but to totally clear out leaves us a wee bit short. I know I said we had midfielders coming out of our ears but letting go three doesn't make that much sense...

Just got a text from a mate saying he'd heard that Fitzpatrick was on his way to Accies. Anyone else heard anything...?

Come on, Gannon. I'm nightshift tonight and am supposed to be trying to sleep, get the player(s) in and I can get some shuteye...

It is indeed the day for daft rumours. Winder if we're trying to move Hammell on in order to finance the move for the Stockport captain Raymes... EDIT Having read Well-Made's post, if true you have to applaud Hammell, be very easy to move somewhere guaranteeing first team football. However, if Gannon was banking on that money to finance another deal, he might not be applauding him...

Does that just prove that journos read fans' forums or do we think there's something in it...? Anyone heard any whispers...?

Just over eight hours to go, what are we looking for from our Jim? Just a right back? Are we expecting anyone to leave? And will we bother replacing them (I'm thinking not if it's a midfielder)? In case you hadn't guessed, I love deadline day...

Guesswork or have you heard something...??

While there will be differing opinions on Hammell's ability, I don't think you'll read many posters on here (maybe 3 or 4) who think he should definitely be moved on. I think what you're reading is a few posters (myself included) who think it seems he's on his way. Not many people are saying "Good riddance". While I think his form's been patchy under Gannon (great vs Steaua at Airdrie, honking at Perth), he's the only player at the club who has played more than 15 first team games at left back for any club. So if he goes and isn't replaced, it might be described as ridiculous. Certainly risky...

If that's his thinking, then fair enough. But one of these versatile guys would, for me, have to be able to play left back...

Kind of sums up how I feel about it. On the basis that there's no smoke without fire, you get the impression Hammell might be on his way. A combination of not being happy at the club under Gannon, Gannon not being impressed with him and the fact that there may be clubs willing to pay cold hard cash for him are all perceived reasons that are leading to people thinking that his time with us is up. But having said that, the last 3 transfer windows, Kris Boyd has been "on his way out of Ibrox" and nothing has happened so it wouldn't stun me if Stevie Hammell was still a Motherwell player after 5 o'clock tomorrow night. I would certainly hope that Gannon would not be giving the OK to any transfer until some cover at left back had been found. Were that not the case, it would seriously deplete our options at the back. I appreciate that should be bring in a centre back, it means Reynolds' presence at centre back might not be as crucial. But were Reynolds to suffer an injury, what would be our options at left back? Ross Forbes? Mark Fitzpatrick? Hammell's sale would leave a gap in the squad even if not a gap in the first team...

Perhaps a bad choice of words to say I wrestled with the issue. I haven't been fretting over how offended I am by the whole thing. I've been trying to figure out where I stand on it. Like it or not, it is causing some divisions among our support. Outwith that, at work yesterday a few colleagues (football fans and not) asked me about it. I think to have no opinion on it would be me copping out a bit. My gut instinct was to say "That's a bit OTT". The "wrestling" to which I referred was actually me having to think of what the worst thing I'd said/heard and accepted at the football before. I think it's very easy to be outraged/offended without thinking too much about it. Having considered all the examples I mentioned in my earlier post, I've still come to the conclusion that it was a bit much. Does it mean I'm horrified and offended by it and those who sang it? No, but it's not my cup of tea. A lot's been said about how Motherwell supporters will be perceived after this. I think (and without wishing to go off topic or overstate anything) there is a wider issue about how football fans are perceived by those non-fans who encounter them. I've never seen old ladies cower or cross the street to avoid rugby fans or parents tut and shake their heads at cricket fans on a train. Football fans in Scotland are not allowed to drink at a game when rugby fans can. Are football fans more menacing/aggressive than fans of these sports? Are we less intelligent? Are we somehow a lower class of fan? Probably not, but paedophile songs, the Old Firm sectarianism, the violence at West Ham recently and when Rangers reached the UEFA Cup Final all lead to that impression. Are paedophile songs at the lesser end of that scale? Yes, by a long way. But they still lead to the feeling that football fans are scum. That's the phrase that was used in a conversation with me yesterday. 95% of fans I know could not remotely be described as that, but the other 5% make a lot of noise and frankly give the rest of us a bad name...

I understand that but, again only my opinion, the end doesn't always justify the means. And I know that's not what you're saying, Dee...

Firstly, I have to admit that I wasn't at Pitoddrie on Saturday. So I'm not going to pass comment on what was or wasn't sang. I have wrestled with this issue for a couple of days. Anyone who knows me will tell you that i am no shrinking violet at the football. Anyone within a 50 yard radius can probably hear me swear and abuse players. Over the years I have had no problem with telling Neil Lennon/Charlie Miller/Kris Boyd/any number of others that their father should have wanked them down the pan. I have referred to opposition players and managers as any number of body parts. I think the difference I see between this and the paedophile chants is that my shouts are clearly insults and not accusations (how can anyone prove they're not an arsehole anyway??). Someone stated on this forum that paedophile was the en vogue insult of the day. I would never use it as an insult, I don't see it as one. It's just not something I would feel comfortable using. As a rule of thumb, would I refer to someone I knew as an arsehole? Aye, and sometimes to their face. Would I ever do the same with paedohile? No, never. Over the years at the football, I have heard the Justin Fashanu songs, the Richard Gough chants, the Celtic boys club chants and let's not forget the Gazza wife beater stuff. None of this provoked the same outrage as Saturday's has amongst our support. All of these chants had some basis in rumours that were doing the rounds in Scottish football or stories that had made the papers but I still don't feel that comfortable with any of them. But I can see why people would use these sticks that were available to beat people with. To use paedophile on Saturday when as I have stated before McGhee has given us so much better material to work with strikes me as a bit sad and unimaginative. And being honest, a bit crass. I guess what I'm trying to say is; what's wrong with simply calling someone an arsehole these days...?

A guess or inside information...?

Apparently they have too many left backs already If someone knows 100% that he's going, and know 100% where he's going then I don't know why they don't come out with it. I don't see Lionel Blair so I'm assuming I'm not on Give Us A Clue...

Any word on destination? I had heard a couple of clubs mentioned this morning...

I heard this morning from a usually reliable "sauce" that Hibs are apparently interested and one other club had made an enquiry (not Dundee)...

Haven't heard a thing but it wouldn't surprise me if Hammell was to leave. I read Gannon's comments about tentative enquiries about certain players and it got me wondering as to who might leave. Hammell, unlike some of the players on the fringes of things, might have his suitors...

Serious question... When did paedophile replace poof as a common insult at the football? I can only imagine now that if Scotland were to play England, we'd here "Jimmy Hill, Paedophile". I mean, do people lack that much imagination that it's like "Fuck it, call him a child molester...". Not very clever, is it? No fan of Mark McGhee me (as everyone knows), but you've just given him a chance to play the martyr to a press that still seems to love him anyway... Mark McGhee 1 Motherwell Fans 0 Which is a shame, because he gave us so much better material to work with...

Have to agree with Lobey here, aw fur fuxake...

Link seems lead to the fact that Wikipedia don't have David Gray footballer listed...

Dunno bout Saturday's goal, Frazzle, but you're right that none of his subsequent games have lived up to his debut in Romania. But that was a fairly high benchmark. I think the jury is still out. He may be one of those keepers who does better in the games against better teams because he's kept busier and perhaps his concentration for games where he can go longer spells without anything to do is not his strong point. Just my gut feeling. But you're right. The fact he's a big unit. And looks a bit on the mad side are definitely plus points...

I think to try and second guess Gannon is a thankless task. I just hope that the other managers in the SPL find it as difficult as we seem to. I don't think anyone saw Saunders coming back in at right back on Saturday and Hately moving to the holding role. I think when we do see his line up, it might become clear where he thinks Aberdeen's strengths lie. If he decides that Mulgrew has to be shut down, I'll be fascinated to see what he does. Does he play someone with more defensive qualities in order to track him - maybe Hately at right midfield? Or does he play someone like Slane out there, someone with pace that'll force Mulgrew to think twice about bombing forward for fear of leaving a gap to be exploited? I honestly don't know, Gannon is fascinating and hard to read. As for how the game will pan out? I fear we'll lose. Not for any other reason that whenever Well fans get this hyped up for a game, whenever we get so desperate to win a game, experience tells me to prepare for a let down. Can't see how or why we should be fearing Aberdeen or why we couldn't get a result but as the old phrase goes, I have a bad feeling about this...