Handsome_Devil

You could have a St Johnstone sweep with two free kicks bobbling around before being sclaffed in as runners-up behind Kelly soaring out to miss the ball completely for it to hit Bevis and roll in. Actually Kelly could have his own section devoted entirely to corners. I don't think it's unreasonable that we concede more this season - weaker wing backs or midfield, the middle of defence is under more pressure, Butcher never recovered etc. Annoying or not, there's a logical explanation. The total collapse from set pieces on the other hand is a different matter. You can literally wander into position and do the same thing you've practiced five days a week before. But no, free kicks, corners, shys (theirs), shys (ours)...for professional players and coaches it should be an embarrassment.

Absolutely, he's done brilliantly (although as an odd quirk I don't think he's played well against us yet). Presumably it's a sliding doors moment for Bair too in that if we'd signed strikers who could actually stand, he would have had much less game time from being fourth-choice pick.

I find it very amusing that the Rangers fans who wanted Casey red carded are suddenly adamant this is fine. I suppose being correct 50% of the time isn't bad!

I wonder if we might try to get away with two wing-backs coming in...a risk but we obviously can't cover everything the way we'd like. I expected Slattery to leave but could imagine another year (or even two) now suits both parties after his injury...I know pros recover from cruciates incredibly quickly these days but the middle of coming back seems an odd time to make yourself unemployed.

I think that's where we'll end up using SOD, if he stays, and I think it's fair enough really...if we're playing 3-5-2 you need at least two of your back three to be comfortable on the ball and get involved when we have possession or are attacking. And simply put, at our level they're much harder to find than guys who can head it a lot...so you keep SOD and McGinn, sign the Livingston guy as cheaper back up and use the savings plus Butcher's salary on a leader of men for the central role. That covers the back three and offers emergency cover for the wing-backs we'll no doubt recruit on loan. Easy in theory...

It'd be a shame because he's likeable and has certainly contributed but ultimately he's now played for us under four managers and has never shaken off being a liability. We clearly can't go into next season with the same pool of defenders and if he's one who goes, fair enough.

An Aberdeen and Hibs double next week and we're safe in practice (not officially but with goal difference we'd be fine). I think we'll win next week but even if not we're not going to lose the next four... surely!

But he did win the ball cleanly, he clearly played it first right out the middle of his boot. He wasn't wild, he wasn't out of control, he wasn't high. The follow through was a perfectly natural continuation of him swinging his leg, it's ridiculous to ask players to stop their foot upon contact with the ball incase someone arrives late and runs into them.

You can definitely say in today's game making any kind of 'blind' challenge like that is stupid because of how it can be interpreted. On the other hand, he's entitled to say he judged it perfectly, won the ball cleanly (and not just with a toe or his studs, he caught it perfectly) and it's not his fault the Aberdeen lad was late. There wasn't excessive force, there obviously wasn't intent, for me it's a never red card.

No one is manipulating in his favour more than those manipulating against tbf.

It's also worth pointing out that beyond his plus points he's mainly been clearing up the shit from before. If he has a good summer we can look forward to better times. If he screws it we'll take action in autumn and start another salvation job. I've got no idea what I'll happen but paying him off to roll the dice on another new appointment right now would be mental.

Bit harsh...3-2 at Dens, however many injury-time goals, Bair, Spittal, a win at Tynecastle...it's not a vintage season by any means but nor is just one 90 minutes. And while these seasons are hardly great, if our bad seasons are comfortably ninth (assuming we see it out ofc) then big picture we're doing very well.

We'll win next week and so long as both County and St J don't do likewise that's that. Kelly played pretty well today tbf, he can certainly feel the loss of the clean sheet this time is on someone else's account.

We probably had marginally the better of the half chances with 11, never in it with 10. But I'd probably have taken those three results if offered before KO.

From memory he was 400k, 200k for Hendry and 150k for Andy Roddie...

I really thought you were going to say anyone who has read something we've published this season wouldn't be surprised.

I'd definitely settle for competence but would always aspire to have the next Sieb Dykstra bawling out John Philliben.

Rumour ofc but I understand we've offered him a reduced deal. Which on one hand is fair but I'd prefer we try elsewhere. I forget who first coined the phrase but Kelly basically performs with the team. In good spells he's good, in poor spells he's poor. But while you can live with that to an extent with an outfielder, you want a goalie who saves and inspires you precisely when things are bad. I always love paraphrasing Clough that the two most valuable players in the team are the guy who scores the goals and the guy who keeps them out. I'd happily have our GK being our highest earner next season but it shouldn't be Kelly.

Just scrolled through the screeds of text we published with the season tickets, few thoughts. Interesting we emphasised fan owned club again/still. Also interesting to freeze prices having previously said we're in danger of losing touch with peers. And either Kettlewell wrote his bit himself or the comms guy really hit the right tone of how he sounds.

Aye, not bad at all although I do wish for a tiny bit of variation they'd change the most Scottish man in the world voiceover (does he have an exclusive contract with us? and tone down the 'we got gubbed with the steelworks 20 years ago...' intro.

As much as you'd never voluntarily lose any individual young player who might be the next big thing, the broad practice that we'll now inevitably lose some before they play in the XI isn't nearly as bad as made out. Essentially we've pocketed huge amounts of cash for a bunch of guys who didn't make it... Would they have made it if they'd stayed? Maybe, who knows. But think of it as balancing risk - yes, if we can keep that brilliant 16-year-old till he's 20, we might make millions. But junior football is full of one-time brilliant 16-year-olds who turned out to be worth hee haw. Banking a bit of cash early is fine. The Rangers stat re Rice is mental...I can understand the temptation to go to England at that age or even the OF a bit older...but jumping ship to them at that age, to them, nah. No doubt the club will be milking it royally in public and behind the scenes.

You might be right but we've seen various youngsters thrown into the team, become regulars, burn out and drift away. Robinson brought DT in gradually, he became great and we sold him for a fortune... picking over it as luck is a very harsh call imho rather than just saying well done. Hastie was such a one season wonder I think making any judgement is difficult. We'll never know on Miller under a different manager but I suspect he'd have had roughly the same treatment he's had under SK - not only is he a tremendous talent but he appeared at 16 with a physicality and mentality (we're all assuming ingrained from his dad) I've never seen with any other Motherwell youth. He was simply ready in every aspect much earlier (this is also why I'd be happy to sell him this summer rather than next, unless he fancies extending to 2027, but that's a different argument!).

Sure but how do you define that? Is someone there day to day overseeing each decision? Are these paid roles - which opens a can of worms - or unpaid - which brings another set of issues? At some point you need to leave the experts to get on with it and trust the folk hired to do their jobs. "Fan owned, not fan run" has been mocked a bit recently because it's all gone to hell but the theory behind it is probably still sound.

Just shows you shouldn't believe what you read on the internet.

What kind of control do you want to exert? Don't get me wrong, I'm not against a society majority on the board but I think the model where the executive are basically the heads of department, accountable to the Society, is a much more solid basis to run things. The fans through the Society should set the very strategic, long-term vision but relying on them to actually implement it on an executive level... different gravy.