Jump to content

2015/16 Ins & Outs


Well Up For It!
 Share

Recommended Posts

Samson is miles better than Dan.

 

Any professional team that has to start Twardzik has serious problems. This is one problem solved.

I concur. Whenever I've seen Samson he's looked decent (in fact I seem to remember him putting in a few outstanding performances against us when he was at St Mirren).

 

If Ripley isn't back down the road in January it's a completely unnecessary signing, but if he is, then I think he'll be a good enough first choice pick until the end of the season at least. Would give him a bit of time to get used to the surroundings and back 4 etc. as well.

 

Whether you agree or not, Baraclough obviously really doesn't rate Twardzik...and I tend to agree.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I concur. Whenever I've seen Samson he's looked decent (in fact I seem to remember him putting in a few outstanding performances against us when he was at St Mirren).

 

If Ripley isn't back down the road in January it's a completely unnecessary signing, but if he is, then I think he'll be a good enough first choice pick until the end of the season at least. Would give him a bit of time to get used to the surroundings and back 4 etc. as well.

 

Whether you agree or not, Baraclough obviously really doesn't rate Twardzik...and I tend to agree.

I don't really rate Dan either, but is this a good use of resources.....what's happened to signing unproven players with a potential sell on value?Fraid I didn't take much notice of him at St Mirren , but in his recent spell at Killie , he wasn't much cop......good luck to the lad , tho

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Utterly bizarre decision and I'm really starting to worry about the direction we are going in as a club. All this talk about bringing through youth, selling them on, etc and then just completely going against it.

 

We have Ripley as No.1, Dan as a decent enough back-up if/when required and young Long and Morrison should we end up with a goalkeeping crisis - and even then we would be allowed an emergency loan.

 

So I can only conclude that this is nothing more than a complete waste of a wage and adding to the "debt" we will owe Les should the Well Society be successful in raising the money. Totally ridiculous business decision as well signing a totally un-required player.

 

Nothing against Samson, probably a better keep than Dan...

 

...but totally baffled.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baffling signing unless some sort of mutual consent bumping of Twardzik is about to happen.

 

Clarkson has also been a baffling signing. MacDonald I wouldn't have signed either. Those aside, and maybe Taylor (surely he'll come good? Surely?!) I'm fine with his signings. I actually think we'd be a better team without the experienced core of McManus, Hammell, Lasley and Skippy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spending money we don’t have is going to lead to another financial train wreck. I’m now genuinely concerned.

 

Clearly this is not Baraclough’s fault, he’s identified players he thinks he needs (minus a right back) and like any spoiled child, he seems to be getting his way.

As much as Uncle Les thinks he’s a 21st century philanthropist, he is not Andrew Carnegie. There surely must be a cut off to what he is ploughing into the club? It’s a matter of time, if not already, that the tax authorities are sniffing about us, as it has to be concerned with our business model.

 

It’s a simple fact with 3500 supporters coming through our gates, we must be losing bags of cash on a weekly basis. God knows what’s happening!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we now have 6 strikers(moore Included) and 3 goalkeepers pulling a wage out of the club. Better get signed up to your £10 a month sharpish.

 

I realise Ripley wage will be debateable but we must be paying something.

 

What's our signing policy got to do with the tenner a month?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baffling signing unless some sort of mutual consent bumping of Twardzik is about to happen.

 

Clarkson has also been a baffling signing. MacDonald I wouldn't have signed either. Those aside, and maybe Taylor (surely he'll come good? Surely?!) I'm fine with his signings. I actually think we'd be a better team without the experienced core of McManus, Hammell, Lasley and Skippy.

 

Logically you'd think Dan was about to be bumped, unless there is a long term injury to someone we don't know about. I'm guessing Clarkson was bought as the experienced head when it looked liked Skippy wouldn't be coming back.

 

I agree, on current form it looks like we'd be better off without those 4, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incredibly confused by this signing, i just dont really know what the thought process behind it is.

 

Some of you have said that Ripley may be gone in January, fair do's, but why not wait until that happens and pick up another keeper at that point rather than pay Samson for the next 4 months as well?

 

I'm a huge critic of Wee Dan, basically because he is never good enough to be Motherwells 1st choice, however I'm comfortable with him being the back up to a competent keeper, so unless we are about to tell Dan to fuck off, I dont see the need for Samson. For what its worth, I reckon Samson is comfortably better than Wee Dan.

 

Can anyone tell me when we last had 3 senior goalkeepers on the books??? Baraclough can have no complaints as he has been seriously backed, he better hope he gets it together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless someone is going out..permanently or on loan....to free up wages, I just don't get this. Even then it's excessive. Surely any spare cash we do have should be spent on trying to strengthen areas that are costing us points. Both full back positions for example as Law and sadly Hammell are liabilities. Especially as it looks like Watt is not to be given his chance despite looking far and away the best right back we have. I wonder if Dan is about to be released by mutual agreement as they say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless someone is going out..permanently or on loan....to free up wages, I just don't get this. Even then it's excessive. Surely any spare cash we do have should be spent on trying to strengthen areas that are costing us points. Both full back positions for example as Law and sadly Hammell are liabilities. Especially as it looks like Watt is not to be given his chance despite looking far and away the best right back we have. I wonder if Dan is about to be released by mutual agreement as they say?

 

More to that one methinks...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...