capt_oats

I was quite surprised about Moult too though he'd been saying in the press that he'd play through it so I've a feeling it's one of those where we knew we could get 15-20mins out of him. In honesty though I'd rather have had Moore coming off the bench in a glorified pre-season friendly than a half-fit Moult. I hope he gets a decent chance from McGhee as all he's really had to date are cameos here and there under previous managers. All the qualities you list are attributes we're lacking up front; Moult's a poacher who'll work his arse off but isn't the quickest, Blyth seems to have 'presence' and McDonald gives experience & guile (along with 14 goals last season) but isn't particularly direct. The one thing I would say is that McGhee's on record as saying he'd like to bring another midfielder but we've spent our money. Essentially if we want to bring someone in we'll need to see out goings. Given Moult's injury I'd be surprised if it was a forward we'd want to move though.

Quite. My general rule with McGhee speaking to the press is to look at what he meant rather than what he actually said. Too many seem to just take him literally. The whole "I could've been managing Liverpool" thing being a good example of that. McGhee's not averse to buck passing but at the same time I'd have thought given where MFC are at the moment in terms of transition "not getting relegated" would be a fairly obvious starting point.

Given the budget has been massively scaled back to a more realistic level based on our income then I'm not really sure what folk were expecting him to say. If he comes out saying we're going for Top 6 then he's making a rod for his own back. The club's primary ambition should always be to stay in the league.

He's played a part in most of the pre-season games, scored in one. Vs Rangers we started with one centre forward (McDonald) and two wingers (Johnson, Ainsworth) which meant we had two strikers on the bench (Moult, Blyth). Unfortunately for Moore there wasn't room for a 3rd on the bench. Last season we were starting games with Johnson, Moult & McDonald as our front 3. If we revert to that then it'd (in theory) leave a spot for Moore as one of the strikers on the bench. As it is though, Moult has a niggling groin injury that appears to need surgery and the rumour seems to be that he'll miss the first month of the season so I'd imagine Moore will be involved, most likely off the bench, while he's out. Listening to McGhee post-match yesterday he seemed to be indicating that he plans on making the wide 433 with Johnson and Ainsworth one of our default systems going forward though once Lasley's back I can see a 442 with two strikers coming into play and Ainsworth on the bench.

Jay Z feat. Beyonce - Bonnie and Clyde

Bonnie Prince Billy - A Minor Place

Queens Of The Stone Age - Feel Good Hit Of The Summer

Prince - Cream

In fairness both he and Alan Burrows effectively said the same thing the other week, it's just McGhee was more explicit in the press conference they posted up on their channel today. The line last week was that they are looking at bringing a central midfielder but they'd need "wheel and deal" a bit. My interpretation of that at the time was that they'd need to move someone (or a couple) on before they could bring the player they were after in.

My point was more that they still paid £200k for a player to go into their development team regardless of whether they were obliged to by rules or not. They saw £200k as a fair price for a player of Hall's limited experience and (potential) ability.

He's got 2 years to go on his deal so realistically if we were going to get the best price for him now is the time to sell. If it is actually the case that we've got our budgets in order then presumably we're in a position where we're happy to sell for our valuation but don't need to sell, though clearly we've been burned in the past taking that position. It depends how much the buying club want him and how quickly they want a deal done. Given we apparently received £200k for an out of contract 19 year old who's moved to Brighton's u21s and played less than 20 first team games then I'd be a bit more hopeful than Desp as far as valuation goes. For a 25 year old key first team player with 50+ games under his belt for us and 2 years to run on his deal £750k-£850k plus add ons wouldn't seem outrageous especially relative to the English market. How much did May go for to Wednesday from St Johnstone and how long did he have left on his deal? It'd be helpful if there were a couple of Championship sides interested tbh.

BBC 'gossip' page has QPR interested in the bold Marvin Johnson according to the Daily Heil. Would make sense seeing as they've just sold Matt Phillips to WBA (for £5.5m no less).

Ha! I just texted a pal of mine saying that the only consolation you could really take is that in saying they defended like a team who had only just met, it actually isn't that far off the truth. I do wonder how much of the defensive side of things Robinson took to do with as well.

Just watched the highlights. Looked a defensive shambles from our point of view. Not really much to say beyond that. Cracking free kick from Johnson but other than that we looked rotten. Fair play to Hibs though, for a lower league side their 4th was a decent finish.

Right. That makes much more sense. I had imagined that him going off at HT yesterday & McGhee mentioning he hadn't been training as much might have meant he'd have been looking to involve him today and get him more minutes. In hindsight that would have been pretty daft. The clips I've seen so far he's looked quite off the pace tbf.

Noticed Moult's not made the bench. Interested to see if the trialist (I'd guess it's Lee Lucas) gets some minutes and how he does against a team like Hibs. He seemed to do alright yesterday by all accounts, the fact that this will become the 3rd game he's been around the team would suggest we're having a decent look at him.

Who was it played the through ball for Moore's goal? Lovely weighted pass. Moore's actually got a turn of pace that Moult and McDonald definitely lack and from what I've seen of him Blyth seems to be there more for his presence. I hope McGhee sees enough in Moore to give him a decent shot rather than the 5-10 minute cameos he was getting under McCall and Baraclough.

Absolutely hilarious WTF?! finish from him. Actually looked a fairly decent game, certainly compared to the last couple. Seemed like the trialist we had playing was knocking some good passes around.

There was a guy Periscoping the game, caught a bit of the 2nd half, missed the Dumbarton goal but it looked like a tidy finish from Moore for his goal. Rounded the goalkeeper. Kennedy subbed off for Heneghan at H/T. Seems both Moult and Thomas missed a couple of sitters early on.

Just saw that. http://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/?p=52487 1st Edit: And they've just signed Ripley on a season long loan as well. 2nd Edit: Christ! They've signed Erwin now...

That's yer Steve Robinson finally confirmed as Oldham manager. http://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/?p=52466

I was wondering that myself however if it's the case that the club have purposely decided to be *ahem* more 'discerning' in their choice of sponsors then it limits their potential options and by extension limits the potential investment. while I'm sure the club would be aiming to maximise revenue they may be happy to balance things out with an open working relationship. in a way it might actually be beneficial to the club (though not in cash terms) if they've got a sponsorship deal that allows them to be a bit more flexible with what they can & can't do within the terms. the fact that within the space of a day they seem to have been able to act on apparent demand is a pretty good thing IMO.

The only thing I can think is that they've opted to change it up as they've had claret shorts the past 2 seasons.

In a wee update on the strip the club have indicated that they'll now be making it available with/without the sponsors logo depending on preference (a few folk had been pointing out that their kids might want the replica of what the players were wearing on the park.) Fair play to the club and Motorpoint for sorting that out.

It's such a weird thing to put on a shirt. Had they done a 130th Anniversary top as a 3rd kit then yeah, I'd have seen the point in that and could have given a bit of license to do something different but commemorating the last time we won the cup is just odd, fine release a DVD, have events and the like but to build a kit around it? Whit? It's a shame since it'd be a really nice top without the watermarking.