Jump to content

David

2016/17 Ins & Outs

Recommended Posts

Whether or not a contract was offered Leitch in time to warrant a development fee should he leave, could anyone have predicted Leitch would have attracted interest from Upper leagues in england at this stage in his career?

He might be the one that got away, but surely we release loads of boys accepting they may go on to have successful careers without a second thought that we may be due something.

Wether it's an upper league or lower league is not the point, the point is we must have wanted to keep him - hence the contract offer - so the contract offer should have been within the correct timescale or we have potentially lost out on £240,000 in development fees which we cannot afford to lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hammell signed up yesterday although I don't see any mention of it here. 2 year deal.

 

Could go past 500 league appearances next season if he can keep clear of injuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hammell signed up yesterday although I don't see any mention of it here. 2 year deal.

 

Could go past 500 league appearances next season if he can keep clear of injuries.

 

Lucky you, missing CMWellfans breakdown over it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hammell signed up yesterday although I don't see any mention of it here. 2 year deal.

 

Could go past 500 league appearances next season if he can keep clear of injuries.

It was mentioned by capt_oats, however, it was a few pages back...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Lucky you, missing CMWellfans breakdown over it.

 

Yes, I admit I had a breakdown about the footballing and financial illiteracy of giving Hammell a two year deal while freeing Scott McDonald. I understand from sources that the Tooth Fairy is coming to Fir Park next close season to sprinkle cash on the pitch. That's the reason why we have given a two year contract to a fragile thirty-four year old.

 

But wait! He can be a coach too! ( sorry about using exclamation marks, me bad ). It seems our club is going for a new record of having more part-time coaches in the first team than players. Cute.

 

And now we are seeing another example of footballing and financial illiteracy if it's true that we have lost Robbie Leitch for nothing ( yet to be proven so lets calm down ).

 

I may not be a genius, but as a long-term devotee of rushing things to meet deadlines, I do know what a deadline is. So if you told me that the deadline to offer a player a contract or risk losing him for nothing was March 31st - guess what?

 

Especially when there's £240,000 at stake at a club that's wittering about the Old Firm only coming once next season? ffs - is it only me that's embarrassed?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes, I admit I had a breakdown about the footballing and financial illiteracy of giving Hammell a two year deal while freeing Scott McDonald.

 

We haven't freed Scott McDonald.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We haven't freed Scott McDonald.

 

Have you read this thread? as soon as he was offered lesser terms ( ie we reneged on the second year of his deal ) he was automatically a free agent.

 

Pay attention ffs. :crazy:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Have you read this thread? as soon as he was offered lesser terms ( ie we reneged on the second year of his deal ) he was automatically a free agent.

 

Pay attention ffs. :crazy:

 

 

 

 

Renege.

 

“You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means”

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burnley have now announced the signing of young Robbie Leitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Have you read this thread? as soon as he was offered lesser terms ( ie we reneged on the second year of his deal ) he was automatically a free agent.

 

Pay attention ffs. :crazy:

 

 

 

 

I actually do the read thread and I can't arsed going back to find the post but if you do you'll see that was Busta's theory and not based on anything other than a hunch.

 

There has been nothing i've read or heard, in public or private, that suggests we do not want honour the deal with McDonald.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure we have but can for once understand why as I said earlier we would not have expected a Premiership club in England to take a player without a 1st team game but we must learn from this as expensive error and make sure we decide 60 days in advance if keeping any youngsters on and make sure a contract has been offered can't turn back clock on this 1 but can't afford to ever let it happen again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leitch a free transfer accordingly to Burnley.

 

We must have fucked up.

Sounds like it. Bit of a ridiculous situation if a player is good enough to catch Burnley's eye but we don't seem to offer this player a contract early enough...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This a major black mark against Burrows if true.

 

The amount of money is more than the season ticket increase. A slap in the face to the support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This a major black mark against Burrows if true.

 

The amount of money is more than the season ticket increase. A slap in the face to the support.

What we talking here? Few hundred grand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is one thing a lot of the posters on this site are good at and that is jumping in with their own version of the facts.

Now we have F***** up and it it is Burrows fault. Why don't we wait until the club make a statement about this.

One point to consider too is I believe he was U17 last season and probably still classed as an academy player. So who offers academy players contracts?. Academy director Scott Leitch?.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I actually do the read thread and I can't arsed going back to find the post but if you do you'll see that was Busta's theory and not based on anything other than a hunch.

 

There has been nothing i've read or heard, in public or private, that suggests we do not want honour the deal with McDonald.

 

Except the fact that we offered him less money than agreed.

 

:suicide:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Have you read this thread? as soon as he was offered lesser terms ( ie we reneged on the second year of his deal ) he was automatically a free agent.

 

Pay attention ffs. :crazy:

 

 

 

At first you said we had lost him completely......

 

"Sign up Hammell for two years, lose Pearson and McDonald."

 

...but we know thats not the case as he hasnt signed for anyone yet. Now you are changing your tune and focusing on the free agent scenario. Or is he definitely gone like you said before? You appear to a have a lot of facts at your disposal because everything is a full on certainty when you write it down.

 

Let's see where we end up before going full on mentalist...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Except the fact that we offered him less money than agreed.

 

:suicide:

Where are you getting this from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At first you said we had lost him completely......

 

"Sign up Hammell for two years, lose Pearson and McDonald."

 

...but we know thats not the case as he hasnt signed for anyone yet. Now you are changing your tune and focusing on the free agent scenario. Or is he definitely gone like you said before? You appear to a have a lot of facts at your disposal because everything is a full on certainty when you write it down.

 

Let's see where we end up before going full on mentalist...

 

Look, I understand you wish to enter into a word play battle - it's a Thursday afternoon and you're bored out of your skull. That's fine.

 

Let me explain something to you that may astound you - Scott McDonald is not a Motherwell player today.

 

He's not a Motherwell player today because the club offered him lesser terms than agreed for the option part of his contract. Therefore, we lost him, gone, see ya.

 

It should be clear to anyone that I believe that to be a ludicrous situation. It should also be clear to anyone that I would love him to sign back on. It should not have come to this. The decision to renege on the agreed deal ( and yes, I know what renege means, weeyin ) was ridiculous.

 

The same members who went on a festival of wittering stupidity when I said "play the youngsters," after we reached top six. I said that because I believe that youth development is the only thing that will save us from going into administration again. "Ahh, but we need the extra £100,000 per place," came the self-righteous chant.

 

Okay - so we need the money. I'm of the opinion that if McDonald was not in the team last season, we would not have made the top six. I'm of the opinion that he drove us up several places in the league, and earned every coin of his contract option. And we repayed him by cutting his wages. So he walked.

 

I think my first ever post on this board a couple of months ago I described our clubs attitude to contracts as "chickenshit." Many of you went ballistic at said description.

 

Go to the Burnley FC website and read the words "Robbie Leitch, free transfer."

 

Now tell me that my description of the club's contract policy is not correct.

 

We lose our most influential outfield player for the sake of £30-£40 grand. We've just lost £240,000 cos the club couldn't be bothered making contract offers in a timely basis.

 

This is an omnishambles, ( look it up, weeyin ). And while tonight you'll go to bed holding your Fir Park cuddlebear tight, and praying for McDonald to resign, it shouldn't have come to this.

 

A serious fail by our club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Twitter @MotherwellFC

×