Jump to content

David

2016/17 Ins & Outs

Recommended Posts

Imo the club are not exactly being forthcoming with any statements or information as to regards player's leaving, coming or contracts and is becoming a bit frustrating

And nor should they!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly doubt Burnley would have went for Robbie if they had to pay a quarter million to get him. They probably just saw they could get him for free and jumped on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly doubt Burnley would have went for Robbie if they had to pay a quarter million to get him. They probably just saw they could get him for free and jumped on it.

£240k is pocket change for them. Swansea signed Jay Fulton & Stephen Kingsley from Falkirk and Adam King from Hearts for their development teams for £250k,£500k & £200k each

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to wait until we get all the facts on the story.

Absolutely. Far too much speculation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is asking the club to give us a minute by minute, blow by blow account of contract negotiations.

 

If we stick to facts, and facts alone, we know that as of today neither Scott McDonald or Robbie Leitch are Motherwell players.

 

After having it rammed down our necks that the club is skint, and with many of us pouring money into the Well Society to assist the future stability of the club, we are entitled to know at some point if our Board of Directors and management are looking after our club's interests and securing our best assets.

 

If it turns out that one of our brightest prospects, who has been developed by us for ten years, has walked for nothing - the club should not be shocked that supporters are enraged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's can be easily cleared up by the club.

 

They confirmed we would receive compensation for Hall quick enough on twitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robbie Leitch was one of our most highly rated youth players and vultures had been circling for while. I've no doubt we offered him a contract in the eventuality he was taken off our hands by a richer club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of interest, can you tell the last young player we lost without receiving a development fee?

 

I can think of a few we've been reimbursed for, but none that have been allowed to slip through the net as it were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The silence from Motherwell creates the speculation.

 

Although, TBF, it's mostly posters on here that are creating the speculation. I imagine the club has plenty to take care of right now than reading through this thread and responding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that there is a new media officer in place there really should be greater consistency across the various outlets about how signings/re-signings are announced. Twitter announces all of the signings as does the official site, as you would expect, but the official facebook page only announced the departure of Hall and arrival of Brill (nothing on the 3 players from England, Lasley or Hammell) and bizarrely the official Instagram page only announced Hammell!

 

I know it's just a small thing but this is all really straight forward stuff and looks better when it's announced across all the outlets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Although, TBF, it's mostly posters on here that are creating the speculation. I imagine the club has plenty to take care of right now than reading through this thread and responding.

I think the point is, had we just received a £200k windfall, we'd likely know all about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of the fee or no fee for young Leitch, it can only be a good thing with English Premier League clubs taking our 17/18 year olds south. Will make the other clubs stand up and take notice and potentially see more follow suit if we're seen a club who can produce players for the teams in the category 1 compensation.

 

Could also motivate the other young players of that age to work for a similar move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't yet know the story with Leitch, and whether or not we've got any compensation. Irrespective of that however, I'd imagine a conversation along the lines of, got any loan players that would benefit from first team experience? Given they've got gazillions compared to us, you'd like to think they'd try to do the right thing and help us out if it could work for all parties. (We have got a record of loan players doing well.) I realise how naive that sounds, but worth a conversation anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of the fee or no fee for young Leitch, it can only be a good thing with English Premier League clubs taking our 17/18 year olds south. Will make the other clubs stand up and take notice and potentially see more follow suit if we're seen a club who can produce players for the teams in the category 1 compensation.

 

Could also motivate the other young players of that age to work for a similar move.

Young Scottish players leaving our league to play for English development teams. Some of these players will get to age 20/21 without playing any competitive football. While there may be a short term financial gain, it doesn't bode well for the future of Scottish football at club or international level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a couple of things to consider. Leitch leaving the club for nothing is not a financial hit for the club. What you've never had, you never miss. If we erred because of some loophole in the regulations, then it is something that we need to tighten up our practices on, but hanging the club or individuals out to dry for it is both pointless and unproductive. Regarding the McDonald situation, the reduced terms offered cannot really be looked at in isolation. Reduced terms were offered to several seniorplayersbecause we could not afford to pay what they were currently on. To not also reduce the offer for McDonald could quite possibly have led to an unsettled dressing room. We, as a club, cannot operate without a controlled and affordable wage structure. Also, failing to take up an option, as we have done with McDonald, is not reneging on a deal.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you guys had a chance to look over Article 50 yet. Just looking for a bit of clarification, thanks.

This thread reads like a Law Society debate, I'll be fecking glad when there's actually some football to talk about

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a couple of things to consider. Leitch leaving the club for nothing is not a financial hit for the club. What you've never had, you never miss. If we erred because of some loophole in the regulations, then it is something that we need to tighten up our practices on, but hanging the club or individuals out to dry for it is both pointless and unproductive. Regarding the McDonald situation, the reduced terms offered cannot really be looked at in isolation. Reduced terms were offered to several seniorplayersbecause we could not afford to pay what they were currently on. To not also reduce the offer for McDonald could quite possibly have led to an unsettled dressing room. We, as a club, cannot operate without a controlled and affordable wage structure. Also, failing to take up an option, as we have done with McDonald, is not reneging on a deal.

 

McDonald is the one with the option not the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....and for the record renege means revoke....

 

There's a suggestion that Skippy was offered reduced terms but, as far as I am aware, the contract offer was never withdrawn or revoked so, by definition, M.F.C. did not renege on the contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....and for the record renege means revoke....

 

.

Hate to join in the pedantry, but no it doesn't . Unless your playing cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..

 

There's a suggestion that Skippy was offered reduced terms but, as far as I am aware, the contract offer was never withdrawn or revoked so, by definition, M.F.C. did not renege on the contract.

 

Where did the suggestion come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't make any sense because McDonald already has a deal he can choose to activate.


This BBC story says

 

 

Left-back Steven Hammell is still considering the reduced terms on offer at Fir Park, while forward Scott McDonald is considering whether to exercise the option of extending his contract.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36604437

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't make any sense because McDonald already has a deal he can choose to activate.

 

This BBC story says

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36604437

Agreed. It wouldn't surprise me if the press have been conflating McDonald's situation with the other out of contract players.

 

McGhee said himself that McDonald was "effectively" under contract because of the option which to me suggests that the option should he take it up is per the original agreement.

Share this post


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

Twitter @MotherwellFC

×