All Activity

Fair question, and at the risk of writing too many words for some people, I'll give it a go. I’d probably value it by separating the player from the deal structure. As far as the player goes, I think Just is excellent. He’s 26, coming off a very strong Premiership season, has World Cup visibility, plays in a valuable attacking role, and we are not under immediate pressure because he has two years plus the club option. That matters, although we do need to factor in what the player wants as well. On top of that, valuation still has to sit inside the market he’s being sold from. The closest benchmark for us is Lennon Miller at roughly £4.5m-£4.75m, but that was for an 18-year-old midfielder with major resale upside. Hibs getting around £6m upfront for Kieron Bowie is a useful comparison too, but Bowie is 23, a Scotland international, had strong resale value and there was Serie A interest. So for Just, I’d break it down like this: Basic fee: £3.5m-£4m Appearance add-ons: £500k-£750k European/international performance add-ons: £500k-£750k Future sale add-on or profit clause: 15%-20% Total package ceiling: around £5m-£5.5m if everything lands That, to me, is the realistic sweet spot. I don’t think £6m-£8m guaranteed is how buying clubs will price a 26-year-old winger from Motherwell, even after a brilliant World Cup. But I do think Motherwell should be pushing for a deal that lets us benefit if the buyer is right and he kicks on again. The buying club is gambling on that happening, so we should position ourselves to share in that if it does. So my number would be: £4m guaranteed, or as close to it as possible (no less than £3.5m), plus serious add-ons and a proper sell-on. Obviously, the higher our guaranteed ask is, the less we can ask for when it comes to add-ons, usually which is worth keeping in mind. I honestly think that’s recognising his value while structuring the deal properly so Motherwell aren’t left short if he proves he’s worth more. Obviously something mental such as a bidding war between two or more clubs desperate for him could happen, even if the chances are slim, but we can always hope!

Think I’m in the minority…. I think it’s fine. Don’t like the tiger etc but what can you do… it’s us what it is. certainly won’t be taking the moral high ground on who sponsors us.

Apparently the ones on sale to the punters will only have the LiME logo on it. Pictures I've seen look ok

Tbh couldnt care less about a sponser of gambling its everywhere you look,adverts at half time tv games on sky,i take it not many cancel their subscription,its a virtous thing for many but if you think its going to make someone gamble more i dont think so,i take it the lads from block e dont put a coupon on a saturday,whats next close mrs baileys and cooper suite becausea big part of scotland drink to excess and that going to a game doesnt need alcohol to be consumed because we have idiots in our support that cant behave themselves because their full of the buckie.that badge on shorts will do feck all to someone with a problem,likewise with all forms of advertising of products when abused can cause harm,responsibilty comes from within and no amount of censorship restriction wil change that.

A sound argument well put. So given that, what would you estimate his transfer value to be.

Great shout. Here’s a photo of Hugh and his wife with the FA Cup in 1927 - he scored the only goal of the game for Cardiff City when they beat Arsenal 1-0.

It’s a very tricky time for the club although I’m hoping they have a lot more information than we do. Trying to determine who to bring in but not knowing how much you can spend, not sure who will be here for the new season or even who will be here initially, since our first competitive game is only 3 weeks away. So much up in the air, an unenviable task.

Pros an cons for me: PROS. 1. It’s claret and amber. 2 It has a hoop 3. It’s got white shorts. 4. Compared to some clubs it’s seems sensibly priced. CONS 1. Claret socks go better with white shorts. 2. It has way too much advertising - almost as much as a F1 driver’s outfit. 3. What is the tiger for?

I'd sell Just and JT and pick Bowie 🙂

I think you definitely know more about the metrics than I do. It is interesting to read. Thanks. All I can tell you is if you lined up Just, Raskin, Engels and Bowie and asked me to pick one for this coming season at Motherwell, I would pick Just.

I think the World Cup has definitely increased his visibility, no question there. My only point is that clubs have become far more disciplined about how much weight they put on international tournament football, largely because history shows they’ve been burned plenty of times paying a premium off the back of short-term performances. The other bit I’d add is context matters. The World Cup is obviously the biggest stage in football, but recruitment teams don’t just look at the headline of “3 goals at a World Cup” and stop there. They look at opposition strength, tournament progression and overall sample size. Two goals against Iran and a consolation against Belgium in a heavy defeat is a very different data point from someone producing that level against France, Argentina or Brazil and dragging their team deep into the tournament. That’s not diminishing what Just did. He was excellent. I just think sometimes supporters overestimate how aggressively clubs react to tournament performances now. Ten or fifteen years ago, clubs would throw money at these situations far more often. Modern recruitment departments are a lot more process-driven. If the argument is now “a handful of elite level World Cup performances massively resets a player’s valuation”, then we’d need to apply that logic consistently across the market. Take Lionel Mpasi. He stood on his head against England and was arguably man of the match. By that logic, clubs should suddenly be lining up to throw millions at him. Same with Vozinha. Massive exposure, huge performance level, lots of coverage. But recruitment departments don’t work like that. For me, the World Cup absolutely moves his valuation upwards. I’m just not convinced it moves it upwards by several million pounds the way some people are suggesting.

Maybe, but he's had one good season with us the year after his was deemed not good enough for his last club and punted out on loan to the Austrian second division. So if you're a buying club looking at his history, that will play into it. Do you get the 2025/26 verision or the 2024/25 version? There's no doubt he has been on fire, and was definitely my player of the season. The next thing he has to do is repeat it, and that's the punt his new club will be taking.

Not.Even.Close

Have to agree. Just has outgrown us, but he's still under contract and hopefully there are a few clubs in to force up the price. It's about time we got paid, instead of being treated like a diddy club. £7m has to be a starting point, anyone else can jog on.

Celtic will get a lot more for Arne Engels than we will for Elijah Just. That's just a fact. Same with Raskin and Rangers. But the Miller transfer has set a new bar and I think Just is worth at least £6 million and possibly has high as £8 million. Just has performed at the highest, most elite level of the game, no Motherwell player has ever done that before and I think that should be reflected in the transfer fee. I've said before that the poor standard of Scottish football keeps transfer fees down and that in some cases transfer fees are actually over valued. You don't have to be that good to perform in this league and the step up to higher quality leagues is big. Elijah Just has completely blown that doubt away. His performances at the very top level have shown he can do it on the top tier.

Raskin or Just? Having seen that the Rangers are looking for £20million for Raskin . I feel if I was a manager I would go for Just and Watt and still have £13million spare to spend on a decent forward. Hope McInnes doesn't read this .

It's just industry standard now. Every team in the Premiership put out three new kits last season except for Livingston. Hibs and Rangers put out 4. And it's been that way for a while. Celtic put out a change kit early last summer as their first released kit then only wore it once in January. In the past they have released 3rd or 4th kits and never actually worn them in a game. Everything in life these days is about extracting as much money from people as possible while wearing a 'we care' mask. It's the culture of the 21st century and goes way beyond football.

That's the shortest essay you've ever written. Well done.

I dont mind it, everyone turning into Gok Wan.

You're clearly in the latter category.

Some people have opinions. Some write essays. Others live in fantasy. £8-10 million.

I wonder if the away kit will be in lime.

Worst.kit.ever. Jesus Christ.

Aye had a good look around yesterday. Couldnt find anything remotely palatable under £600 without staying for a full week! Always wanted to go there but never managed previously with Scotland or Motherwell. If we were guaranteed to go thru, saving the money for the next round would seem like a smart plan. Unfortunately with Motherwell nothing is ever guaranteed! 😆😆😆

If the club were to take a more active moral stance on sponsorship, it would raise some uncomfortable and difficult questions. As raised on P & B, in such a scenario, should it stop selling alcohol at Fir Park? Its not ok to advertise alcohol but its ok to sell it?? Anyway as far as the new strip is concerned, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating as they say. Will it sell out?