Jump to content

capt_oats

Legends
  • Content Count

    1,622
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    35

Everything posted by capt_oats

  1. 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/
  2. 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:
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. Nope. He signed a 2 1/2 year deal in 2016. https://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2016/12/16/midfielder-turnbull-extends-contract/
  6. Huge fan of this btw. Not even joking, you've 100% made my afternoon.
  7. Ben Heneghan to Blackpool on loan. Nathan Thomas to Notts County on loan.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. If you can be arsed sitting through it here's a full 21 minute video of the bold Alejandro...
  13. Agree with this. If there are players who don't fit the system (for whatever reason) or Robinson feels we need to improve on what they offered last season then I'd like to think we'll be making an attempt to move them on. I'm all for having depth but simply piling midfielder on top of midfielder is a bit of a waste of budget.
  14. Signed for Blackpool last week btw.
  15. He is, aye. FWIW: here's the full quote from Robinson about the midfielder. As I said on here and P&B that, for me, reads like a pretty specific type of player. It sounds like a deep lying or central mid rather than an advanced #10 type and the 'stature' comment unsurprisingly sounds like Robinson's talking about a physical attribute rather than profile in the game (though there's no reason why it couldn't be both I suppose). It's a pretty crude way to view it but it sounds like a player who we're hoping gives us the physical side of McHugh's game with the technical side of Bigi's. It's of course open to interpretation but that's my view on it anyway. One thing that I would say is that it reads like a player who's being brought in with a view to going into the first team rather than that 13-18 group Robinson references earlier in the interview. As has been said earlier we've got plenty of midfielders with a specific skill-set so I'd have thought (hoped) if we're bringing another in then it's someone who offers something different to what we already have and is also an improvement on what we already have. As for why it's not done, it could be something as simple as the player still being on holiday and not in the country to do the photocall. As others have said, there's every chance the deal is done in principle.
  16. Pretty much. By all accounts he just downed tools and spent most of his time cutting about with the Pogbas and trying to punt his fashion line. Most Thistle fans were happy to see him chased. Also, he doesn’t really fit the ‘adds creativity’ side of the profile Robinson is talking up.
  17. Funny you say that as on reflection the player Robinson seems to be describing sounds like McHugh’s role in the side. Just picking a name who’s supposedly available it sounds more like an ICT era Greg Tansey-type than an Ali Crawford.
  18. In fairness I don’t think you could listen to many of the qualities Robinson is describing and draw Ali Crawford as a conclusion in terms of the player he’s talking about. Aside from the “stature” comment he talks about the player being able to get about the park, offers a bit of composure and creativity and give us a bit of ownership of the ball. I’m paraphrasing there but IIRC that was the gist. For me, that’s not an attacking midfielder or #10 like Crawford he’s talking about. That’s a central midfielder, a more deep lying or box to box type.
  19. Johnson's 25 and will be out of contract so presumably there wouldn't be a fee to pay. I'm not sure if that has an impact on the excitement scale.
  20. Unpopular opinion: white shorts don't go with a claret & amber shirt.
  21. You'll find his role here: http://www.basesoccer.com/people/
  22. And I'm not saying that he'll come to us only that there aren't going to be many (if any) teams at any level who are going to be willing to pay a remotely substantial fee for a player whose only first team football amounted to (literally) a solitary minute in 6 months and whose Rangers career amounts to less than 2000 mins of football in roughly 2.5 years nor will there be much incentive for a buying club to match a reported 6k p/w salary. To all intents and purposes O'Halloran's the Rangers version of Ciftci. As thisGRAEME says Rangers can want a fee all they like but good luck finding someone willing to pay it.

Twitter @MotherwellFC

×