stuwell

Tell him most of us didn’t know David Turnbull this time last year so go see who the next one is. We have Scott, Semple, McGuire, Brown, Livinstone, Gordon & Morrison among others all ready to break through and that’s without any signings we’ve still to make.

My mistake, although he made such an impact at Rangers I’d forgot he was there. Old age doesn’t come alone

The guy was offered a contract months ago which was within out budget but he refused it so not much else the club could do.

Signing Lafferty could be a mistake, high earner with little sell on value, hit headed at times and didn’t standout at Hearts last season. Money could be better spent I think.

If there are 3 players not taking money out of the player budget then there is scope to increase other players wages. Also if the team is performing better the other players will get more money in win bonuses and finishing positions. I don’t have all the answers but I do believe that we must look at different ways to maximise our cash. Additionally I would like to think that the club could use some of the money to tie down some of our youths on longer contracts and point to this and say we want you guys to be taking these players places in a couple of years do go prove you’re worth it.

I’d rather the Well society money was split between the academy and building up capital savings for any unforeseen problem. The club should be able to run at a slightly higher level now that any transfer fee will go solely into the club. As ive said previously I’d like the club to set up a fund to pay for a couple of players with any transfer money from these players being split - say 60:40 between the club and the fund after the money payed in wages to the player goes back into the fund. ie sign player on £3K per week on a 3 year deal If we sell the player after 18 to 24 months we would need to sell for a minimum £225K to £300K to brake even. Anything extra is then split between club and fund. Fund uses money on new player and we start again. If we can afford to do this for 3 players on an ongoing basis and we make a profit on one player, break even on a second player and make a 50% loss on the third it’s not impossible that the fund could slowly grow.

Melvin, Maybe the clubs holding off until they see how much they have to spend on better class players

Steelboy, as you fine well know, the society does not deal with the day to day running of the club as that is the job of the board. So Lawell or any other person/club asking for confidentiality has no say in how the society operates. If I’m wrong please enlighten me to the truth. Every post from you is either negative and or mostly wrong or a twisted version of the truth but I’m sure you know that when posting.

Seems a bit low for the time he’s been with us. Unless they have put in a sell on clause as compensation. If true then how low will Hastie’s be?

Think they did, at one point they were the club offices but I believe they were sold back in the ‘90’s or early 2000’s

Not a great fan of loan deals but the three players mentioned will improve whatever team they get loaned out to which will make them harder to beat, so in that respect I’d rather have one of them in our team while our youth develop than have them lining up against us.

Rumoured 10K per week 4 year deal. If he stays he can’t be pissed off with Motherwell as - allegedly - when the price in his contract was reached he was allowed to talk to the club that made the offer, he or his agent knocked it back so he’s no reason to upset. Personally I think that if he stays he will only increase his value which should benefit the club long term.

Agree with you that we should only take a player if they are a good player and our youngest’s are not ready yet - which I think maybe the case or we would have seen them on the bench and getting game time towards the end of last season. someone like Johnston as a 1 year gap filler surely is better than some journeyman who might or might not be good enough.

I’d rather stay in my current seat and see what a £1M upgrade can pay for on the park. Tie down a few of the younger players on decent long term deals and buy one or two more proven players with potential. Agree about upgrade but think it could be done in a couple of years with cash from further sales.

If some of the cash is used to resign Gorrin, Ariyibi and a proven striker. Plus tie down the likes of McAlear then it’s money’s well spent that could see us move forward and pay dividends in the future. Bottom line is the long term future of the club must come first and unless one of us has a spare £2M to give the club to keep DT and buy the said players then we have to sell to the team willing to pay the asking price.

Thank fuck we have a wise sage like you to keep us informed of the “truth”.

You’re either being extremely naive or down right awkward to suggest that there won’t be a release clause in the contract

No doubt we will find all that out eventually once/if the deal is done

Agree with this. It’s very unlike Motherwell to announce thing publicly before it’s a done deal.

Better be some fucking deal that no one else would match

If the price is right then it should be up to DT if he wants to move.

As we’re not sure how much we could get for him it’s a bit hypothetical but if we take the top figure being quoted of £4M (and I’m not sure how much tax would be liable so I will leave that out) then id like the following option to be considered. Repayment of debt. If I recall correctly then 40% of transfer fees goes to LH & JB, so £1.6M - this should clear or all but clear that off. Of the £2.4M left £1M goes to the club for upkeep and other sundries. With the remaining money I’d set up a fund to be used over 3 to 5 years to be used to pay higher wages to 3 players - ie Alex Rodriguez Gorin - that we can sell on. So for talking sake if we say 2 players on 3K and one on 2K a week that works out at just over £400K a year. On selling the player, the fund would get back the amount that it has paid out in wages to that player followed by 40% of the remainder with the club receiving the other 60%. The same % cut would also go for any further fees received for the player in add ons / sell on clauses This could not only see the fund continuing longer but also potential growing - although we would have to take into account the fact that not all will prove successful but better quality signing should increase the chances. with the fund paying 3 players wages then the existing squad budget can be split between fewer players leading to a modest increase in wages to some others. If it’s done on a 3 year rolling cycle we could identify the next youngsters and encourage them to aim to be here on decent wages for longer. If this works then the Well society’s cash can be used more for academy development & crowd development rather that the day to day running of the club.

Read that earlier - great piece well worth reading

Yer getting yer knickers in a twist over something that is very unlikely to happen - go lie down

He will get more caps than them in the long run.