Jump to content

Andy_P

The Small-Medium Rebuild 2018'19

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, smiddy said:

its deffo a pleasure to see him playing well, and annoying the life out of you yodo hahahahah long may it continue 

You still stalking Grimmy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2019 at 6:46 PM, FirParkCornerExile said:

I can tell you plenty players who looked the real deal as youths and came to nothing. 

So your policy is to ignore the best performing youths and let them run out their contracts?

No one is saying every hot youth player makes it but it's got to be the best and most sensible policy to keep these players under contract if it's even a 70-30 chance that they don't make it because there are hundreds of thousands of pounds, maybe even millions resting on it, if they do.

We've invested a lot of time and money into Jake Hastie, he comes in, does brilliantly and he could leave off the back of a shocking lack of foresight.

I'm afraid this Hastie/Turnbull contract situation is inexcusable.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ya Bezzer! said:

So your policy is to ignore the best performing youths and let them run out their contracts?

No one is saying every hot youth player makes it but it's got to be the best and most sensible policy to keep these players under contract if it's even a 70-30 chance that they don't make it because there are hundreds of thousands of pounds, maybe even millions resting on it, if they do.

We've invested a lot of time and money into Jake Hastie, he comes in, does brilliantly and he could leave off the back of a shocking lack of foresight.

I'm afraid this Hastie/Turnbull contract situation is inexcusable.

 

Remind us of your ideas on how to make them sign? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say it’s perfectly excusable. They have signed Turnbull and as far as Hastie is concerned they played it by the book. They identified his potential, loaned him out to give him first team football and to see if he would hold his own in the rough and tumble of championship football. He did okay - nothing to suggest the huge surge in improvement when he got back and was given the opportunity to play in our own first team. They kept playing him and offered the best deal they could. It is down to the lad myself now and, if he is listening, a lot of experienced and respected people in the game are suggesting a move away from Motherwell might not be the best thing for the development of what is a very promising career. And to be fair, he seems to be taking his time to think it all through - nor has he signed any pre-contract deal either. So I for one remain cautiously optimistic we could have his signature yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, weeyin said:

Remind us of your ideas on how to make them sign? 

 

I'm still  waiting to hear whether you think Hastie might just have signed a new contract last Summer had he been offered one. When he had already been earmarked as a player with a better chance than most of making it. And at a time when their was a buzz about the place having reached two Cup Finals. That seems to be the point some people are making and which you seem keen to ignore.

Of course you can't make players sign. We all know that. But the timing of any offer can make a huge difference and the Club may well have blown it with Hastie.  I wonder what you would be saying if Turnbull had opted to leave as well, also belatedly having been offered an extended contract. Talent like Turnbull and Hastie possess is a rarity, particularly at a relatively small Club like Motherwell. And please don't compare them to the likes of Dom Thomas and Luke Watt. They are both way beyond that level

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, weeyin said:

Remind us of your ideas on how to make them sign? 

 

By offering them contracts before other clubs see them doing well at the top level and come in with offers 10 times what we can offer.

Bit harder when you do it the other way around.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Ya Bezzer! said:

By offering them contracts before other clubs see them doing well at the top level and come in with offers 10 times what we can offer.

Bit harder when you do it the other way around.

 

Given that both Hastie and Turnbull a year ago had contributed almost nothing to the 1st team it might have been thought at the time that they might not be up to the step up  to 1st team football and as such not worth the offer of a new deal, hindsight is wonderful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dennyc said:

I'm still  waiting to hear whether you think Hastie might just have signed a new contract last Summer had he been offered one. When he had already been earmarked as a player with a better chance than most of making it. And at a time when their was a buzz about the place having reached two Cup Finals. That seems to be the point some people are making and which you seem keen to ignore.

Of course you can't make players sign. We all know that. But the timing of any offer can make a huge difference and the Club may well have blown it with Hastie.  I wonder what you would be saying if Turnbull had opted to leave as well, also belatedly having been offered an extended contract. Talent like Turnbull and Hastie possess is a rarity, particularly at a relatively small Club like Motherwell. And please don't compare them to the likes of Dom Thomas and Luke Watt. They are both way beyond that level

I’m still not convinced by this arguement that he should have been offered a good, long term contract at a time when he was nowhere near the first team. You mention his level of talent yet he was far from blowing everyone out of the water at both Airdrie and Alloa. He did “ok” and showed promise but more promise than Dom Thomas did at the same stage ? I would argue no. Even Craigen admitted he was surprised at his development so for me it’s not as cut and dried as is being made out. I’m certain he would have signed a new contract if offered one a year ago but then so would just about every young player. You don’t however offer contracts because you’re sure they will be signed, you offer them if you feel it’s the right decision and the club clearly felt he had not shown enough “ at that point” to justify it. The fact he has developed so quickly and let’s be honest we’re all surprised at how quickly it’s been does not make the original decision to wait necessarily wrong.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yorkyred said:

I’m still not convinced by this arguement that he should have been offered a good, long term contract at a time when he was nowhere near the first team. You mention his level of talent yet he was far from blowing everyone out of the water at both Airdrie and Alloa. He did “ok” and showed promise but more promise than Dom Thomas did at the same stage ? I would argue no. Even Craigen admitted he was surprised at his development so for me it’s not as cut and dried as is being made out.

Who mentioned a long term contract at that stage?  

 Hastie has come through numerous age groups at Motherwell, surviving as dozens of others fell by the wayside.  He was surely worthy of a year's extension to ensure we were protected if he made that final step up. I accept that step up was achieved 6 months earlier than anticipated but we exposed ourselves by letting his contract run down to such an extent. Ditto Turnbull.

And, as indicated by Craigen and Robinson, Hastie was loaned out to Alloa with a view to preparing him for the first team. He had outgrown the youth team and needed to compete at a higher, tougher level. So he was not as far away from the first team as you suggest. In fact, had he not already featured? Similar to McGuire on loan at QOS. And Hastie's game time at Alloa was carefully managed by Craigen and Goodwin to ensure he could also get game time at Motherwell, to monitor his progress.

You either trust in your youth and your planning, or you don't. Hastie and Turnbull were clearly earmarked as two that had an above average chance. Instead of protecting our investment of some 13 years we opted to utilise scarce resources to allow the likes of Taylor-Sinclair and Sammon to sit on the Bench, at best. Well, how did that work out?

Nobody is saying that anybody who has a couple of good games for the youth/reserve team should have cash thrown at them. But we should protect exceptional talent that we have invested many years in developing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving slightly away from the Hastie saga. We need a left back and 2 strikers to replace the Duds Johnson and Main for next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, DEWELL said:

Moving slightly away from the Hastie saga. We need a left back and 2 strikers to replace the Duds Johnson and Main for next season.

Got to agree think we have all knew that from the start of the season .Never ever thought Johnson was a player but at the same time never thought Curtis would turn in some awful performances like yesterday . A left back should have been a priority but again the manager signed a dud in ATS and Sammon least said the better .The rest of the season can be used to have a look at players the coaching staff think have a chance of making it ,hopefully we have some summer targets on our radar 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, dennyc said:

Who mentioned a long term contract at that stage?  

 Hastie has come through numerous age groups at Motherwell, surviving as dozens of others fell by the wayside.  He was surely worthy of a year's extension to ensure we were protected if he made that final step up. I accept that step up was achieved 6 months earlier than anticipated but we exposed ourselves by letting his contract run down to such an extent. Ditto Turnbull.

And, as indicated by Craigen and Robinson, Hastie was loaned out to Alloa with a view to preparing him for the first team. He had outgrown the youth team and needed to compete at a higher, tougher level. So he was not as far away from the first team as you suggest. In fact, had he not already featured? Similar to McGuire on loan at QOS. And Hastie's game time at Alloa was carefully managed by Craigen and Goodwin to ensure he could also get game time at Motherwell, to monitor his progress.

You either trust in your youth and your planning, or you don't. Hastie and Turnbull were clearly earmarked as two that had an above average chance. Instead of protecting our investment of some 13 years we opted to utilise scarce resources to allow the likes of Taylor-Sinclair and Sammon to sit on the Bench, at best. Well, how did that work out?

Nobody is saying that anybody who has a couple of good games for the youth/reserve team should have cash thrown at them. But we should protect exceptional talent that we have invested many years in developing.

Regardling being loaned out the club have done this with a number of players in the past and continue to do it. They have always said that playing in the first team at any club is more valuable to a players development due to a more competitive environment. All of these loans are put in place to give players a “ potential” chance of playing in the first team, not a guarantee and history shows many players go out on loan  but still fail to make it in the first team at Premiership level. I don’t believe there is anything here that is about trust in the youth players or the clubs planning. The nature of young players is some develop further and some don’t regardless of what a club does, all a club can do is have a system in place and hope that with support a percentage make that step up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Yodo said:

Got to agree think we have all knew that from the start of the season .Never ever thought Johnson was a player but at the same time never thought Curtis would turn in some awful performances like yesterday . A left back should have been a priority but again the manager signed a dud in ATS and Sammon least said the better .The rest of the season can be used to have a look at players the coaching staff think have a chance of making it ,hopefully we have some summer targets on our radar 

Personally I still thought Johnson showed promise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst Danny Johnson is no world beater he is simply not suited to our style of play ie playing as a lone striker.  He's basically a penalty box poacher.  Thats the bottom line.  When we completely changed our style and set up after the festive season break he was left high and dry. 

We'll need a left back for cover and certainly do need to revamp our striking options.  Winger(s) will also be required amd maybe another midfielder depending on any unwanted departures. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yorkyred said:

Regardling being loaned out the club have done this with a number of players in the past and continue to do it. They have always said that playing in the first team at any club is more valuable to a players development due to a more competitive environment. All of these loans are put in place to give players a “ potential” chance of playing in the first team, not a guarantee and history shows many players go out on loan  but still fail to make it in the first team at Premiership level. I don’t believe there is anything here that is about trust in the youth players or the clubs planning. The nature of young players is some develop further and some don’t regardless of what a club does, all a club can do is have a system in place and hope that with support a percentage make that step up.

Players are loaned out at various stages of their development, with Hastie's spell at Alloa being a move up to Championship level and a far greater test than his spell at Airdrie, and with the  definate intention of getting him first team ready. To compare it to placing numerous players on loan with lower league clubs is misleading.

Do you think it would have been wise to extend Hastie's contract by twelve months at reasonable cost when he was loaned out to Alloa? Given that he had progressed well through all stages of development and was close to breaking into the first team, as stated by Craigen and Robinson when he joined Alloa. Clubs like Rangers, Celtic ....and several English Clubs it now appears....closely monitor youth development throughout Scotland so it is no surprise that a highly rated talent such as Hastie attracts immediate attention when he makes an impact like he has. Rangers previously attempted to sign him up at age 16. I think given those circumstances it would have been sensible to protect our investment in Hastie rather than sign up bench players, one of which did not even last beyond January. And let's not forget signing up Newell for another year. Sensible use of limited resources?  I hardly think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully Jake Hastie has come to realise, over the past few games, that he still has a lot to learn even at Scottish Premiership level.  Recently teams have been doubling up on him and he's found it harder to make an impression. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need a First Choice left back to allow our best right back to return to his natural position ,should always play your best players in the position they are most comfortable and while Tait has done okay at LB think we would get more out him at RB 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dennyc said:

Players are loaned out at various stages of their development, with Hastie's spell at Alloa being a move up to Championship level and a far greater test than his spell at Airdrie, and with the  definate intention of getting him first team ready. To compare it to placing numerous players on loan with lower league clubs is misleading.

Do you think it would have been wise to extend Hastie's contract by twelve months at reasonable cost when he was loaned out to Alloa? Given that he had progressed well through all stages of development and was close to breaking into the first team, as stated by Craigen and Robinson when he joined Alloa. Clubs like Rangers, Celtic ....and several English Clubs it now appears....closely monitor youth development throughout Scotland so it is no surprise that a highly rated talent such as Hastie attracts immediate attention when he makes an impact like he has. Rangers previously attempted to sign him up at age 16. I think given those circumstances it would have been sensible to protect our investment in Hastie rather than sign up bench players, one of which did not even last beyond January. And let's not forget signing up Newell for another year. Sensible use of limited resources?  I hardly think so.

The comparison between Hastie and giving contracts to senior players has been used quite a bit but really the two are completely separate. Clubs will always make mistakes when giving out contracts and that’s not going to change regardless of what they do at youth level. Anyway hopefully he still signs regardless and we move on but regardless if the club feel they have made a mistake they will hopefully learn from it, no one gets everything right including me and you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Yorkyred said:

The comparison between Hastie and giving contracts to senior players has been used quite a bit but really the two are completely separate. Clubs will always make mistakes when giving out contracts and that’s not going to change regardless of what they do at youth level. Anyway hopefully he still signs regardless and we move on but regardless if the club feel they have made a mistake they will hopefully learn from it, no one gets everything right including me and you.

Do you think it would have been wise to offer Hastie increased terms last summer, when he was going on loan to Alloa? Say, from £250 PW to £500 PW . A question you did not answer. The overall cost increase would not have beeen massive.

The reference to more senior player contracts ( Sammon and Taylor-Sinclair as examples) is a pointer to where I believe money should have been better invested. And would have resulted in a better return.  Less of a risk if you like. I don't regard Newell as one of those senior players,  but rather a youth player, inferior to Hastie, whose contract was extended ahead of a sensible offer being made to Hastie. So funds were available.

I hope I am wrong , but I believe Hastie will sign a Pre Contract Agreement with Rangers this week for a wage that blows us out the water. We will end up with decent compensation, but a great deal lower than it would have been 9  months down the line. Rangers continue to rebuild ,are aggressively recruiting, and we will not be the only Club to see a player head in that direction. Kilmarnock already with Jones and  soon Aberdeen when Shinnie signs.

Best move for Jake? Possibly not,  Best move for Motherwell? Definately not. But sadly money talks. It could have been worse though. The Club's decisions could have robbed us of Turnbull as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, dennyc said:

Do you think it would have been wise to offer Hastie increased terms last summer, when he was going on loan to Alloa? Say, from £250 PW to £500 PW . A question you did not answer. The overall cost increase would not have beeen massive.

The reference to more senior player contracts ( Sammon and Taylor-Sinclair as examples) is a pointer to where I believe money should have been better invested. And would have resulted in a better return.  Less of a risk if you like. I don't regard Newell as one of those senior players,  but rather a youth player, inferior to Hastie, whose contract was extended ahead of a sensible offer being made to Hastie. So funds were available.

I hope I am wrong , but I believe Hastie will sign a Pre Contract Agreement with Rangers this week for a wage that blows us out the water. We will end up with decent compensation, but a great deal lower than it would have been 9  months down the line. Rangers continue to rebuild ,are aggressively recruiting, and we will not be the only Club to see a player head in that direction. Kilmarnock already with Jones and  soon Aberdeen when Shinnie signs.

Best move for Jake? Possibly not,  Best move for Motherwell? Definately not. But sadly money talks. It could have been worse though. The Club's decisions could have robbed us of Turnbull as well.

Honestly I don’t think i’m qualified to answer the question of an improved contract last summer simply because i’m not part of the coaching staff at Motherwell. That’s the job of  those that work with the player on a day to day basis that know the individual far better than I do. It’s easy for anyone on social media to think they know better, happens all the time but as we know a lot of things stated online tend to be, let’s say less than accurate. I leave certain decisions in football to those that are actually qualified to make them, i’m not one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, postiejim said:

On his performance yesterday Hastie will be lucky tae be in the next starting 11, not a dig ,think the boys a good player.....

I think he has a long way to go and at this point is pretty predictable. I think even at this point most of us can see how he can be nullified and he’s going to have to learn how to adapt. He’s certainly talented but i’m worried if he does move to Rangers it could kill his career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Yorkyred said:

Honestly I don’t think i’m qualified to answer the question of an improved contract last summer simply because i’m not part of the coaching staff at Motherwell. That’s the job of  those that work with the player on a day to day basis that know the individual far better than I do. It’s easy for anyone on social media to think they know better, happens all the time but as we know a lot of things stated online tend to be, let’s say less than accurate. I leave certain decisions in football to those that are actually qualified to make them, i’m not one of them.

Its actually more a Business decision than a Football decision tho!

We Knew Turnbull Maguire & Hastie were the 3 "Names" in the Under 20 Squad that were most likely to make an impact!

We Knew we were gonna send them on loan to develop them for the first team!

We knew all 3 were into the last 12 months of their contract

We Knew these players have been previously courted by bigger clubs at younger age grades

Now, giving what we knew, and the club ethos for developing youth, surely the men in charge should have been looking to protect the clubs investments?

Offering all 3 of these lads a 12 month extension with an increase of £200-£300pw, on the proviso that the contract is reviewed again this summer should they meet their development targets, would have cost the club between £30k & £45k extra in total, and given the club security should 1 or all 3 of them make an impact. 

We got lucky with Maguire & Turnbull, but look to have lost Hastie, for the sake of potentially £10k! That is utter insanity and shows just how small time and amateurish our club is sometimes. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Shaka said:

Its actually more a Business decision than a Football decision tho!

We Knew Turnbull Maguire & Hastie were the 3 "Names" in the Under 20 Squad that were most likely to make an impact!

We Knew we were gonna send them on loan to develop them for the first team!

We knew all 3 were into the last 12 months of their contract

We Knew these players have been previously courted by bigger clubs at younger age grades

Now, giving what we knew, and the club ethos for developing youth, surely the men in charge should have been looking to protect the clubs investments?

Offering all 3 of these lads a 12 month extension with an increase of £200-£300pw, on the proviso that the contract is reviewed again this summer should they meet their development targets, would have cost the club between £30k & £45k extra in total, and given the club security should 1 or all 3 of them make an impact. 

We got lucky with Maguire & Turnbull, but look to have lost Hastie, for the sake of potentially £10k! That is utter insanity and shows just how small time and amateurish our club is sometimes. 

 

The power of hindsight. We can always say we knew something when in reality we knew very little. Running a football club is not my industry and am reluctant to express a view on the clubs negligence and or malpractice without knowledge of that industry or the happenings in one particular workplace within that industry.

Talking of knowing very little, does anyone on here actually know if the 3 were offered an uplift and extension of contract last year?

Does anyone know that they weren’t?

I think there’s 2 phrases that sum up this debate,  “You don’t know what you don’t know” and “opinions are like areseholes...”

Share this post


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

Twitter @MotherwellFC

×