Jump to content

2016/17 Ins & Outs


David
 Share

Recommended Posts

Oh I don't know, I wouldn't be surprised if that came to pass. Our support has some right weirdos in it.

 

You called?

 

.................................................

 

 

What beats me is the amount of people who don't comprehend what they read.

 

Nobody had a go at Flow.

 

It was merely an outlining of the conditions under which I would have a go at Flow.

 

Luckily Flow read the forum and sorted it out before I had a stroke.

 

...........................................................................

 

 

What's unique about this forum is how the mods go about their business.

 

I fell off my seat laughing at Mr Passive Aggressive himself, Andy_P, having a go at a member last week along the lines of:

 

"You passed that opinion months ago, don't you dare come back on here this season and pass your opinion I don't agree with again."

 

wtf :crazy:

 

 

Anyway - I'm on holiday in a warm clime until December. All the best for the new season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe the negativity on this site against everything Motherwell nobody is exempt players are slated ,manager is slated , Flow is slated now I know everybody has opinions but would be good to come on and see something positive for a change we know we need another midfielder and I think we will get 1 before 1st September but to say that makes McGhee a liar is ludicrous maybe we are waiting to see if we qualify for last 16 of league cup,maybe we are waiting to see if others leave on loan,I don't know but am prepared to wait and see and in the meantime get behind the team we currently have who for some reason are now all piss all of a sudden after 1 game FFS give them a chance at least we havnt lost to Ayr or East Fife like accies and Dundee did its early days

 

I suspect as the two Gents below have alluded you must be relatively new to the forum if you consider the current climate on here to be negative! This place is a bastion of positivity these days in comparison to some of the darker and occasionally poisonous posts of the past. I'm biased of course but I think we're in a fairly good place forum wise at the moment and it isn't deserving of the negative tag you've given it.

 

Oh for sure there are many who are glass half empty rather than glass half full types and there are some who tread a fine line between holding more view controversial views and blatant trolling but for the most part we are fortunate to have a good number of regular posters (a number of relative newbies amongst them) who, even if they hold differing views, generally provide us all with a good deal of thought provoking and interesting reading.

 

I don't think people are being overly negative in the main. Couple of voices, aye, but the rest are just discussing and speculating to the news.

 

 

It's hardly MJC negativity!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compare this seasons squad to last. Barraclough or McGee in charge? Law or Tait? Robinson or Blyth?

 

The only players we'll miss are Pearson and Hall, but most were happy to see Hall go for 200 k.

 

Heneghan, Tait and McHugh have looked decent additions.

 

The thing is, we are being vocal about our financial constraints, other clubs are a lot more guarded.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By my reckoning we have lost eight wages from the end of last season (Ripley, Pearson, Fletcher, Gomis, Law, Leitch, McFadden, Hall) and replaced them with five (Tait, Heneghan, McHugh, Brill, Blyth). If you also factor in the fee being around 100k for Pearson (don't know if that figure was hearsay), that would probably be roughly two players salaries for the season, it would seem that our budget seems to be at five salaries down from last season. That's even before you consider the fact that Hammell, Lasley, McManus and McDonald took wage cuts. I know 30% was quoted for Hammell, but again I don't know whether that was hearsay and I don't know if that was the same across the board for the other three, it does seem like we really genuinely have cut back.

 

As much as I'd like us to sign another midfielder and balance the squad out, I am actually quietly content at the fact for once we do actually appear to be budgeting sensibly. Last season I was put off the well society majorly by their claims we would become self-sufficient, yet we were chucking money at anyone who would sign. It is strange that we have gone from one extreme to the other in terms of playing budget, but it is at least encouraging we seem to be moving towards practising what we preach.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget that the likes of Alan Campbell and Dylan Mackin will be earning more plus most of the first team squad from last season will be earning a little more (commonplace in contracts that year 2 is higher than year 1.....). So the wage bill calculation can be complicated. I still feel that we are a necessary player down in that we have no senior attacking central midfielder in the squad. Surely every club needs one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't claim to know but I do wonder as a passing general interest how the income from player trading is treated (not saying that it should be one way or another, I don't mean it like that). Given it's been pointed out that we've scaled back our budget expectations based on 10th place, no player sales or cup run, which I totally agree with, I'd assume (perhaps incorrectly) that that is by definition our "budget".

 

Seeing as the reported income from Hall's development fee, Pearson's compensation wouldn't, I imagine, have been budgeted for I'd think that the "budget" such as it is remains fixed so to speak and those fees along with any others will be treated or processed separately. That's ignoring the speculation as to whether we did/didn't get compensation for Robbie Leitch or even Stephen Robinson for that matter. It'd make sense in terms of budgeting if it wasn't just being piled back into the playing budget but rather was being re-distributed over a longer period.

 

However given the turnover of players in and out you can see how the playing budget is something of a juggling act at the moment.

 

Again that's, pretty obviously, just speculation on my part but it'd make sense with a view to the whole longer term perspective if we're maintaining a budget at a certain fixed level and any additional income is being (hopefully) treated as profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my reading of the situation capt_oats (from the various sources like interviews and WS meetings)

 

Playing budget is levelled at lowest success possible but avoiding relegation. Everything else goes to the club to pay off what needs paid. It's the lowest risk strategy but on the other hand leaves us wether even less chance of going on that elusive cup run or money spinning top 6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think many have overlooked that our "benevolent benefactor" has cashed in his chips 3.5 years early. I suspect he'll want a clean break come October and therefore any outstanding debts have to be covered. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the revenues gained as Joe points out are being directed into that pot opposed to like-for-like in the playing budget.

 

What is key? Well we're not going to win the league, so maintaining our status for season 2017-18 is key when there will be a new TV deal. To be in the league below will be very costly come May 2017. European qualification doesn't necessarily bring riches (unless you do a Starjnan and pull Inter Milan after a trip to Poland).

 

I'm a firm believer that the club has to aspire to be more than what it is at the moment. You have to aim to be better and improve, both in terms of attendances, attracted players, performance levels, revenues and results. If you plan for 10th you leave little wiggle room for failure or slips and it almost becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

Back on to the in and outs .... I understand an offer was made for Marvin way below what the club think he's worth. With the reports of the McDonald offer, it appears there's too many chancers in this world taking the piss.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You called?

 

.................................................

 

 

What beats me is the amount of people who don't comprehend what they read.

 

Nobody had a go at Flow.

 

It was merely an outlining of the conditions under which I would have a go at Flow.

 

Luckily Flow read the forum and sorted it out before I had a stroke.

 

...........................................................................

 

 

What's unique about this forum is how the mods go about their business.

 

I fell off my seat laughing at Mr Passive Aggressive himself, Andy_P, having a go at a member last week along the lines of:

 

"You passed that opinion months ago, don't you dare come back on here this season and pass your opinion I don't agree with again."

 

wtf :crazy:

 

 

Anyway - I'm on holiday in a warm clime until December. All the best for the new season.

Just a shame that warm clime has Internet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think many have overlooked that our "benevolent benefactor" has cashed in his chips 3.5 years early. I suspect he'll want a clean break come October and therefore any outstanding debts have to be covered. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the revenues gained as Joe points out are being directed into that pot opposed to like-for-like in the playing budget.....

 

I'm a firm believer that the club has to aspire to be more than what it is at the moment. You have to aim to be better and improve, both in terms of attendances, attracted players, performance levels, revenues and results. If you plan for 10th you leave little wiggle room for failure or slips and it almost becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

Good post. Protracted negotiations between the Society and our benefactor will no doubt be focusing on adjusting repayment terms based on transfer income. In effect the financial goalposts were moved 20 minutes into the game. That said, I don't know how much leverage Les can have given that he's the party who wants to change the agreement to his benefit.

 

I'm a firm believer in cutting our financial cloth accordingly, but, as you say, there's a danger we may just cut it too tight. The situation we find now find ourselves in is that we're having to cut the budget just too quickly - in effect halfway through a rebuilding process. Its a bit like building a house and then changing the budget halfway through the construction. In order to install a water supply you have to do without electricity. The finished product is going to be a bit unbalanced. We have 3 wingers and indeed 4 attacking wide midfielders but not a single attacking central midfielder!

 

What would an attacking central midfielder cost for say a year? £50-67K? Is that enough to risk the club's Premiership status? I know its not quite as clear cut as that but thats my point in essence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By my reckoning we have lost eight wages from the end of last season (Ripley, Pearson, Fletcher, Gomis, Law, Leitch, McFadden, Hall)

Is McFadden still recuperating and training with us? If so, are we planning on offering him a new deal, or is his time at Motherwell finally come to an end?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is McFadden still recuperating and training with us? If so, are we planning on offering him a new deal, or is his time at Motherwell finally come to an end?

He was sat in the main stand with the players/ wives last Saturday ....he's had a weave done.... sporting a fine head of hair !!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is McFadden still recuperating and training with us? If so, are we planning on offering him a new deal, or is his time at Motherwell finally come to an end?

 

Alan Burrows replied to someone on Twitter a while back saying that he'd do pre-season and they'd see where things were. Given he was offered a deal as per the club statement on the squad update on 16th May http://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2016/05/16/squad-update-may-2016/and there's not been any word one way or another I'd be inclined to think the offer is still on the table. If that's the case, would it be unreasonable to think that the club are building that wage into their current budget until there's been a yes or no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good post. Protracted negotiations between the Society and our benefactor will no doubt be focusing on adjusting repayment terms based on transfer income. In effect the financial goalposts were moved 20 minutes into the game. That said, I don't know how much leverage Les can have given that he's the party who wants to change the agreement to his benefit.

 

It's well documented that we missed our first lump sum under the repayment terms, if memory serves me correct it was for a relatively small figure in the grand scheme of things and at the time on here there didn't seem to be any reason as to why, it appeared more an oversight than a struggle.

 

For all we know we could have defaulted again and therefore those financial goalposts are completely in Les' hands as the contract/agreement made is then null.

 

All conjecture and second guessing however, but it could explain things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...