Jump to content

Andy_P

The Small-Medium Rebuild 2018'19

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, weeyin said:

 

 

It does, actually - according to the Board.

It doesn't, however, have a contingency for failing to pay our debts and lose money by overpaying salaries and win bonuses (like we did the season we were finishing best of the rest).

We could follow the Dundee Utd model people kept suggesting we adopt - that's working out well. Or maybe just get a rich investor like Ross County, and hope they keep pumping in money - that worked out well for us with Boyle.

Or we could spend within our means while we pay off our debt and see where that takes us over the next couple of seasons.

And again, I'd still be interested to hear who all these players are that are an upgrade on what we have and would play for the wages we can afford. 

It’s an issue of mentality weeyin. 

Why should a fan owned club be comfortable with the situation/

be inspried to contribute

more?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Londonwell said:

Genuinely have no idea what you’re talking about.

Resident ‘No’ voter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the debt is such a priority, perhaps we should pay it all off with the substantial down payment we are receiving for Cedric? Then, without this hanging over us, we can play hardball with suitors for the likes of Cadden, Carson and Campbell? As previously stated, I have no problem with selling players on, I simply do not want us to be seen as the cheap option. An extra hundred grand is close to chicken feed in their market, but it would make a reasonable difference to us. We need to be squeezing the most out of these deals to allow us to progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Kmac said:

I don’t even know where to begin Guys...

truth be told, I’m quite appaled by the utter appathy/ reservation amongst our support.

despite being hounded on these boards for the last few hours, I have the best intentions of the club at heart. 

I’m a significant  monthly contributor to the well society and ‘was’ a season ticket holder for almost 20 years yet according to the majority, I’m talking utter nonsense with  No sense of the club.

I’ve never once advocated us paying too high wages (I realize where we are in terms of stature and finances), yet what I’ve advoated is a lack of acceptance in reverting to ‘type’.

why the fuck should we settle for being a wee club with a wee mentality? 

Yes, be realistic, but also think big guys.

lets have an ambition of competing in the top 4/5/6 consistlently,

btw, to the poster above, im long in the tooth enough to remember Boyle)...

selling top talent  and beginning from scratch isn’t a model in any business, let alone football.

We all contribute in our own way to the club and and fair to express our opinions however absuse on models for the club is  ridiculous and shouldn’t be tolerated.

yes, we can get heated in the vision for what we all contribute to, but the tone/stance taken is indicative of a “top wee, top poor, too stupid” mentality and will get us nowehere other than a couple of seasons in the championship...   

 

 

 

To be fair, I don’t think you’ve been hounded. There’s been conflicting views put to yours and from my perspective, you’ve given as good as you’ve got (keyboard gangster caption?).

So, if I’m understanding the point your making, you want to support a team that has ambition and doesn’t settle. I get that. It’s a ball ache to watch the cycle of rebuild but we’re used to that, the title of this thread and it’s predecessor is indicative of that.

Maybe some of us are apathetic. So a genuine question....

We know the financial limitations of the club. We have comparably minimal cash turnover and outstanding debts to benefactors. We want to push on for consistent 4th, 5th or 6th league placement.

What does the club need to do in order to achieve this? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The African said:

If the debt is such a priority, perhaps we should pay it all off with the substantial down payment we are receiving for Cedric? Then, without this hanging over us, we can play hardball with suitors for the likes of Cadden, Carson and Campbell? As previously stated, I have no problem with selling players on, I simply do not want us to be seen as the cheap option. An extra hundred grand is close to chicken feed in their market, but it would make a reasonable difference to us. We need to be squeezing the most out of these deals to allow us to progress.

The debt is apparently interest free so shouldn’t be all that too much of a burden, other than the obvious obligation to pay.

I believe (this is an educated guess)  that our ‘business model’ involves us selling a vision to players that sees us giving them an opportunity and  promoting them for X amount of money if they perform. 

It’s quite simple, Kipre had a £million price tag on his head. We received a structured offer that met that- so he goes. When you consider where he started off last season, I honestly cant see why anyone would have a problem with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Kmac said:

Resident ‘No’ voter?

Fair play mate, that one was so off the mark that it did bring a smile- unintentionally or not.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

If the debt is such a priority, perhaps we should pay it all off with the substantial down payment we are receiving for Cedric? Then, without this hanging over us, we can play hardball with suitors for the likes of Cadden, Carson and Campbell? As previously stated, I have no problem with selling players on, I simply do not want us to be seen as the cheap option. An extra hundred grand is close to chicken feed in their market, but it would make a reasonable difference to us. We need to be squeezing the most out of these deals to allow us to progress.

Debts or no debts, the going rate selling prices from the Scottish leagues are lower than we would want them to be. 

This is largely due to the general standard of Scottish Premier football being perceived as inferior to much of the lower English leagues. 

It’s harsh but it’s true. It’s a buyers market and it’s partly why there are sell on clauses.

Share this post


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

The debt is apparently interest free so shouldn’t be all that too much of a burden, other than the obvious obligation to pay.

 

My understanding is that the debt is interest free for now, but that this is only for the short term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad everyone is taking this so well. 

We've sold a good player for good money as we expected we would this summer.

It won't make or break our season. 

At least we can play Celtic with 11 men now....

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Don’t worry, I don’t feel hounded (I know the deal)

 

I’m just totally perplexed by a large cross-section of our support who are happy to support goings on yet will be the first to jump on these /other boards / stands further down the line to criticize the club, manager or structure come whatever month of the season, without pre-emptivly seeking a solution. 

 

Support goings on? 

Sign some players that it's too early to make opinions on and sell a young player in a deal that could be our most lucrative ever? 

I'm glass half full most of the time but I'm genuinely perplexed at what you think is going so badly. Unless you know Donnelly, Gordon, ATS, Sammon and Johnson are all definitely 100% shite.

Share this post


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

If the debt is such a priority, perhaps we should pay it all off with the substantial down payment we are receiving for Cedric? 

Or put some into the Well Society, Hutchison matches it. Allow The Well Society to give it back to MFC, then pay him the rest. Sorted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Or put some into the Well Society, Hutchison matches it. Allow The Well Society to give it back to MFC, then pay him the rest. Sorted.

I believe Hutchison matches it by reducing the debt rather than a cash payment. Not really in the spirit of his generous offer to make a payment which was not genuine, just to generate the debt reduction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really I don’t see what else the club could do without running up more debt or fail to clear that we already have. The club has 3500 core support and short of a huge run of luck with a group of new, cheap signings can’t hope to compete with the large, big city clubs with support up to 15 times ours. First priority should always be get rid of that debt and then it’s going to be able to invest to a higher level in the playing squad. I don’t think it shows a lack of ambition by either the board of the supporters that advocate the above, it’s just the sensible way to move the club forward. Yes they have to balance losing too many players and risking relegation but I don’t think they have done too bad a job up to this point.

Share this post


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

Or put some into the Well Society, Hutchison matches it. Allow The Well Society to give it back to MFC, then pay him the rest. Sorted.

As far as I know, and I stand to be corrected on this, Les will only match monies raised by the fans, and not the club.

As for team building, we have improved depth of cover and not the calibre of our first pick 11.  That should prove imporant during spells of injuries and suspensions, like now.  Time will tell on that and the new boys should be given time.  Ordinarily though I'd like to see us target our weakest position every year and strengthen it, thereby raising the overal standard of the team. 

Share this post


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

Really I don’t see what else the club could do without running up more debt or fail to clear that we already have. The club has 3500 core support and short of a huge run of luck with a group of new, cheap signings can’t hope to compete with the large, big city clubs with support up to 15 times ours. First priority should always be get rid of that debt and then it’s going to be able to invest to a higher level in the playing squad. I don’t think it shows a lack of ambition by either the board of the supporters that advocate the above, it’s just the sensible way to move the club forward. Yes they have to balance losing too many players and risking relegation but I don’t think they have done too bad a job up to this point.

Ultimately, that’s where we disagree. 

We had a relatively decent season last term, getting to two cup finals yet we’ve done nothing to note in terms of generating momentum. 

Ultimately, people want to see a team that plays decent football and wins. I’m not suggesting we have a divine right to win each week however the product at the moment clearly isn’t enticing an extra 500-600 people to come each week, which I totally understand; it’s pretty dross most of the time to watch the ball spending the majority of time in the air.

arguably, our two most recognisable names from the past couple of seasons (moult and kipre) have left -they’ve performed well and earned moves so gripe there- however the club has done nothing to build positive momentum.  

‘We had arguably one of our most lucrative seasons last time around with cup runs and transfer fees yet notable re-investment to the squad has been minimal. 

‘Now once again, I’ve never suggested we go well over our wage bracket or break the bank on a couple of new signings however brining in 1 or two faces this summer with the ability to maybe bring a few bums back on seats should have been (in my opinion) a priority in order to build the momentum in mentioned above and quite frankly Conor Sammon isn’t going to do that. 

We’re going in circles and at one point, something will give in this model/mindset and it’s going to bite us badly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Kmac, you want the club to build on the momentum of last season, recruit players that can play a bit and bring some of those hampden floaters through the gate and entertainingly win more games than we lose all without breaking the wage structure.

As asked before, how does the club do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Gadgey said:

So Kmac, you want the club to build on the momentum of last season, recruit players that can play a bit and bring some of those hampden floaters through the gate and entertainingly win more games than we lose all without breaking the wage structure.

As asked before, how does the club do that?

Many ways do so.

One option would have been to place emphasis on strengthening the squad this summer through the promotion of youth ie. turbull, Maguire, Scott etc. Rather than adding to what has become. A bloated midfield for example, whilst utilising other assets we have in the squad, ie. Bigirmana. None of those mentioned have had a look in on the cup games and I’m doubtful they will for the ucpcoming league matches. 

‘Subsequently, you can argue that this would have allowed a differening of budget prioritisation ie. bringing in 1 striker of note rather than a journeyman SPL striker and a non league - I’m sure combining two salaries to one could’ve allowed us to bring in very decent quality with Main, Bowman and Scott and the ever injured Newell and a returning Tanner all in the mix and I’d argue, same strategy for midfield.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a quandary. 

As has been mentioned on here the club are also in a position of trust. If you sell a vision and then renege on that then it maybe puts doubts in the minds of potential signings. By that I mean if we turn down decent offers and offers that in principal meet our valuation you risk having an unhappy player on your hands. 

I have always believed that whilst it is obvious what we can get for our players is a LOT lower than if they were playing for teams down south I also see that as the case v the City clubs up here. It looks like McGinn will go for £3m or possibly more with a year left on his contract. He is a decent player to be fair. The more obvious comparison is McKenna at Aberdeen. The bidding rumoured to be in the region of £4m ! Is he four times better than Cedric ? Were Carson at anyone of the City clubs as a (now) established internationalist he would be £2m +. I suspect we will be lucky to see half that or less even........

Anyway we now wait and see whether we lose anyone else for a fee from Cadden, Carson and Campbell. Expect it to be the either Carson and or Cadden. Serious Q - unless someone offers us £1m+ for Cadden would we not be in a position to get a significant development fee if he were to leave at the end of his contract ? I recall we got circa £600k for Erwin from Leeds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kmac- Isn’t that reliant upon the youth being capable of the step up?

it could be argued that the 1yr deals for the likes of Grimshaw and Rose are to see through until the youth are blooded on loan and then ready for the step up in 12 months time.

The difficulty with what you suggest is that us punters don’t see the day to day and only have snippets of match time to go on.

The commuting to one higher wage has been done before. Yeh, it got us to a cup final, 2nd and 3rd place finishes but still brought no extra revenue and necessitated a huge rebuild. It also saw us signing some really really bad players to pollyfill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Welldaft Mk1 said:

Serious Q - unless someone offers us £1m+ for Cadden would we not be in a position to get a significant development fee if he were to leave at the end of his contract ? I recall we got circa £600k for Erwin from Leeds. 

Theoretically yes and bear in mind he's now a full international. If he keeps getting capped that will help us in this regard.

Not sure what the age limit is though. 23? And there are cross-border quirks as well.

Edit - There was a formula posted somewhere to calculate development fees due.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Gadgey said:

Kmac- Isn’t that reliant upon the youth being capable of the step up?

it could be argued that the 1yr deals for the likes of Grimshaw and Rose are to see through until the youth are blooded on loan and then ready for the step up in 12 months time.

The difficulty with what you suggest is that us punters don’t see the day to day and only have snippets of match time to go on.

 

I'm not Kmac but yes, you're right.  We cannot rely on the youth stepping up.  They can be encouraged but there's no guarantee.  Some will succeed, some won't.  Its not all about talent its also about character and as SR said thats why youngsters are loaned out - to put them in competitive and pressure situations and test them.   SR, KL and SC see these lads day in day out and we don't. 

In a way its a similar situation to Bigi  - SR & KL have their reasons for not playing him and they know him far better than we do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Richie said:

Theoretically yes and bear in mind he's now a full international. If he keeps getting capped that will help us in this regard.

Not sure what the age limit is though. 23? And there are cross-border quirks as well.

Edit - There was a formula posted somewhere to calculate development fees due.

 

One wonders whether we have put an offer to Cadden of an extension. Surely with a year to go we would have at least tried ? Then again we may wait until the transfer window closes and he is still a Motherwell player.  

There is less than a week to go before the window closes down south. At least it gives us another 3 weeks before our does. Although I assume we cannot buy players contracted in England and likewise they cannot buy contracted players up here after the 9th August ? 

Share this post


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

Many ways do so.

One option would have been to place emphasis on strengthening the squad this summer through the promotion of youth ie. turbull, Maguire, Scott etc. Rather than adding to what has become. A bloated midfield for example, whilst utilising other assets we have in the squad, ie. Bigirmana. None of those mentioned have had a look in on the cup games and I’m doubtful they will for the ucpcoming league matches. 

‘Subsequently, you can argue that this would have allowed a differening of budget prioritisation ie. bringing in 1 striker of note rather than a journeyman SPL striker and a non league - I’m sure combining two salaries to one could’ve allowed us to bring in very decent quality with Main, Bowman and Scott and the ever injured Newell and a returning Tanner all in the mix and I’d argue, same strategy for midfield.

 

 

I’m not convinced that would work. People always talk about promoting youth but the vast majority turn out to be not good enough and you can’t rush the good ones through too early. I would have loved to see an established striker come in but they don’t come cheap and we would end up breaking the wage structure to even get them to sign with us. Personally I don’t think Bigi is as good as a few think he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody any ideas who Kipres replacement is likely to be . Imagine it will be like for like . Don’t think we’ve a ready made replacement at this moment in time coming through . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Gadgey said:

Kmac- Isn’t that reliant upon the youth being capable of the step up?

it could be argued that the 1yr deals for the likes of Grimshaw and Rose are to see through until the youth are blooded on loan and then ready for the step up in 12 months time.

The difficulty with what you suggest is that us punters don’t see the day to day and only have snippets of match time to go on.

The commuting to one higher wage has been done before. Yeh, it got us to a cup final, 2nd and 3rd place finishes but still brought no extra revenue and necessitated a huge rebuild. It also saw us signing some really really bad players to pollyfill.

I don’t see one point as negating the other.

im more focussed on this summer’s dealings. Im neither Rose or Grimshaws biggest fans though they can both be useful players. 

I’m more focused on this summer.

as said, was there a need to bring in Sammon and Johnson rather than 1 striker of quality?

was there a need to bring in Gorrin without offloading a midfielder? Surely again brining in 1 notable midfielder whilst offloading 1 should’ve been the route to go?

I’m there could’ve been options in either Scotland or England or further afield with a number of senior games under their belts at a good level who could’ve been sold for profit further down the line, too?

i’ve no issue with us selling players, what Issue with is our planning and strategy.

Share this post


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

Twitter @MotherwellFC

×