Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


capt_oats last won the day on January 9 2019

capt_oats had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

504 James McFadden

About capt_oats

  • Rank
    Attracting Interest from Abroad

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,608 profile views
  1. They played in the same Oldham side - season 2018/19
  2. When the story of the Norwich offer broke it was reported as being the same as offered by Celtic including sell on % (see tweet from the PA below) I've no idea for certain what the agreement is but given absolutely everything else associated with the deal was leaked to the press and it's been a staple of our business model to include sell on clauses then I'd say there's a fair chance there's something there.. I'm happy to stand corrected here but even if there was no official sell on clause we'd still be due 5% of any future sale due to FIFA's solidarity training payment. Also, FWIW: United received a sell on from Celtic when Armstrong was sold to Southampton: https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/sport/football/dundee-united/676342/dundee-united-to-cash-in-as-former-player-stuart-armstrong-heads-to-southampton/ https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/dundee-united-set-for-windfall-from-stuart-armstrongs-move-from-celtic-to-southampton/
  3. Pretty much. There are pretty formal criteria that contribute to establishing the fee. There are also precedents in that we've received development compensation for former players in similar circumstances: Erwin, Hall etc. The reason for the dispute between Aberdeen and Accies was Aberdeen thought they could get Ferguson for £80k or something like that and Accies decided to dig their heels in and be difficult because tbh, why not. It's worth being a difficult when Aberdeen were low balling In the end Aberdeen had to pay £238k. In itself that's a bargain of sorts as Ferguson's come good but it's near enough 3x what they thought they'd be paying. The full details of clauses are pages 55-61 here but the key ones are below: At Tribunal the criteria are as follows:
  4. It was on the squad list on official site earlier this afternoon but it's been changed back now. It looks like it had been published by mistake.
  5. capt_oats

    retro kits

    Depends how much you're wanting to pay... There are a few 90s shirts here: https://www.shirtsofexcellence.co.uk/shop/shop.php?page=2&pn=motherwell (there's a 94/95 away shirt there) Also Classic Shirts though they're more 00s onwards https://www.classicfootballshirts.co.uk/nsearch/?q=motherwell#?keywords=motherwell&search_return=all&sort_by_field=Oldest+Season
  6. Nope. He signed a 2 1/2 year deal in 2016. https://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2016/12/16/midfielder-turnbull-extends-contract/
  7. Huge fan of this btw. Not even joking, you've 100% made my afternoon.
  8. Ben Heneghan to Blackpool on loan. Nathan Thomas to Notts County on loan.
  9. The home one is a pretty heavy comedown from last season. It's fine but they absolutely nailed last season's so for me this one suffers in comparison and there are wee things I keep seeing in it that I'd change. Nothing major but a claret trim on a crew neck rather than the cut out they've used and the same sort of trim on the cuffing on the sleeves would have finished it off nicely IMO. I still maintain that white shorts don't go with an amber shirt but I'm guessing we've gone with that because we've got claret shorts with the away kit so it's better than an all amber job. I'm all about the away though, largely because I like Roma kits and I also like the fact they've so openly taken that as an inspiration. So kudos for that. As for the 'unique' patter I think it's another case of people reading far too much into things and going wild with their expectations. Personally I just took 'unique' to mean bespoke detail so the stuff like the 1886 deboss and the detail on the claret band ticks that box. It seemed clear we weren't planning on doing anything radical.
  10. Aye. That may well be how it pans out in the end. We'll just need to wait and see who actually signs but either way there was no explicit mention of a winger.
  11. He didn't. People have just heard that statement and conflated the striker and 'wide player' remark and assumed he meant a winger. What he actually said was that "we're possibly after one more striker, one more wide player or one that can play both would be great" there was no mention of a winger. I took his comment about "one that can play both" as a joke. The fact he laughed after he said it was a bit of a giveaway tbh. That's not to say we won't end up signing a forward who can play wide but it's wrong to say that Robinson stated he was after a winger. As CSmith says I'd have taken ATS to be the wide player he mentioned in that interview.
  12. Did he? While they were both at the club: - Ciftci started 11 from a possible 22 games (2 of which he was ineligible to play in anyway) and missed 5 through injury. - Bowman started 9 from a possible 22 games and missed 7 through injury.
  13. If you can be arsed sitting through it here's a full 21 minute video of the bold Alejandro...

Twitter @MotherwellFC