Jump to content

Andy_P

Season 2020’21: Game 31: Hibernian (A)

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, bobbybingo said:

It would depend on whether a decision's been made on Morrison's future at the club. He wouldn't be back right now were it not for the injuries and Chapman being hopeless.

He was put out to get games, didn't work out as planned though. At least taking the club at their word about seeing him as a future number 1, and isn't he contracted beyond the summer?

 

Also yeah, Carroll is definitely missing next week with a concussion. If he doesn't you've got to ask serious questions about our concussion management protocols as he was out after that knock yesterday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And who do you think placed the Gallagher story in the Media?  First of all that there was a clause about to kick in and then that it had been "sorted" and that he would be available for free in the Summer. I hardly think the Press would be bothered making it up given that they don't give a toss for anybody other than Rangers and Celtic. So no motive. 

And I did not pick up on the Club responding that the story was fabricated, as surely they would have done  if a lie was being promoted about a player.  It would definitely not be in Motherwell's interest to try and encourage a January bid for their Captain and best player before any clause kicked in extending his contract and placing Motherwell in a better position. . Especially in the middle of a relegation dogfight, Nor can I see the Club advertising the fact he is available for nothing in the Summer given they will hope to encourage him to stay. So no motive there either.

So that leaves Gallagher and his new Agent.  Doing what they feel necessary to cash in when they can?   Can't really blame them for that given a chance to substantially increase earnings of a 30 year old. And the timing of his unfortunate injury was very convenient.  But I wonder what the reaction would have been on here if his name was Hastie or Vigurs rather than Gallagher? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, C&A not the shop said:

He was put out to get games, didn't work out as planned though. At least taking the club at their word about seeing him as a future number 1, and isn't he contracted beyond the summer?

Yeah, contracted till May 2022. Always good to see one of our own break into the team, but never having seen him play I don't know how likely that is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, ropy said:

Carroll or McGinley?  One may be concussed.

According to GA, Carroll was removed from the fray because his nose would not stop bleeding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, C&A not the shop said:

..... would you bring in Morrison for game time once we're safe or stick with Kelly

Stick with Kelly 100%, the higher the league position the more prize money we get. 

With lost income this season and a drop in season ticket income next, we can't afford to sacrifice a league position or 2 to give Morrison first team games.

Share this post


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

But  what the reaction would have been on here if his name was Hastie or Vigurs rather than Gallagher? 

Care to explain what you mean by that 

Share this post


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

And who do you think placed the Gallagher story in the Media?  First of all that there was a clause about to kick in and then that it had been "sorted" and that he would be available for free in the Summer. I hardly think the Press would be bothered making it up given that they don't give a toss for anybody other than Rangers and Celtic. So no motive. 

And I did not pick up on the Club responding that the story was fabricated, as surely they would have done  if a lie was being promoted about a player.  It would definitely not be in Motherwell's interest to try and encourage a January bid for their Captain and best player before any clause kicked in extending his contract and placing Motherwell in a better position. . Especially in the middle of a relegation dogfight, Nor can I see the Club advertising the fact he is available for nothing in the Summer given they will hope to encourage him to stay. So no motive there either.

So that leaves Gallagher and his new Agent.  Doing what they feel necessary to cash in when they can?   Can't really blame them for that given a chance to substantially increase earnings of a 30 year old. And the timing of his unfortunate injury was very convenient.  But I wonder what the reaction would have been on here if his name was Hastie or Vigurs rather than Gallagher? 

As far as you're first point is concerned, Steelboy is basically correct (I'm not aware of the specifics in the middle). Only a very select few would know about details of his contract and if they were inaccurate or just downright wrong then surely the player, his agent, or the club, which doesn't tend to comment on contracts, would have quashed this story immediately.   This did not happen. Alan Burrows, at the AGM, stated that Declan Gallagher was out of contract in the summer. So we know the start and end points. It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to work out whats happened, in principle, in between.   In short, I agree with you Denny. 

As to your second point, I can't agree.   When his stock was somewhat lower, Mr Gallagher was happy to sign a 2 year deal with an extension clause. Now that his stock has risen he wanted the club to rip up that deal. How would he feel if he'd been a failure and the club had said to him after 6 months that it wanted to rip up his contract and he'd simply to leave without any payment?  Contracts should be honoured on both sides. There may well be more to this saga than that, but thats how it appears to me. I'm not at all sure sure what his name has to do with it and what you're getting at here. Had it been Jake Hastie, Iain Vigurs, Allan Campbell or whoever I suspect the reaction would have been exactly the same for the vast majority of our fans.   Its people's comments and actions that have coloured fans' reactions, not their names. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ropy said:

A good analysis but given that the original point was made up perhaps it wasn’t required 

Whats the point of a message board if not to pontificate? :P

Share this post


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

Care to explain what you mean by that 

Hastie was open and up front about leaving. No pretence. He got slaughtered on here by many for wanting to better himself, and being honest about it. And booed when he took to the pitch. Perth I think. Don’t see the same abuse heading Gallagher’s way and, if true, he has been doing a lot more manoeuvring re contracts than Hastie ever did. And we got good money for Hastie. 

Vigurs was crucified...still is....for allegedly feigning injury to force his way out of the Club. Same accusation has been made about Gallagher, but folk refuse to believe it whereas in Vigur’s case it was taken as gospel. 

Double standards. 

Every player has the right to try and better himself, but it does seem that for some on here, if your face fits and you are a “good guy”, then you can do no wrong and can muck the Club about in ways that others get hammered for.

And I’m not defending Gallagher. Far from it. Just comparing the reaction to his dealings and those of others who eventually moved on. 
 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Care to explain what you mean by that 

I don't want to speak for dennyc but I think it just means that all players do not get treated equally. Vigurs was a wage thief if memory serves me correctly. He had a back problem and some fans did not believe it was real. Polworth is the current wage thief. Hastie was a traitor. Ainsworth only tried near contract extension time. Others were imposters.  The list goes on and on.  You just need to look at the comments over the last month regarding Roberts, Magloire, Lamie and Crawford from the starting 11 yesterday and you get the idea.

Maybe the point is that Gallagher is being shown a benefit of doubt that others would not be afforded. I would like to think that all the players and managers would be given the benefit of the doubt so I am pleased if Gallagher is being given that benefit. 

edit: sorry dennyc you just beat me to it.

Share this post


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

Hastie was open and up front about leaving. No pretence. He got slaughtered on here by many for wanting to better himself, and being honest about it. And booed when he took to the pitch. Perth I think. Don’t see the same abuse heading Gallagher’s way and, if true, he has been doing a lot more manoeuvring re contracts than Hastie ever did. And we got good money for Hastie. 

Vigurs was crucified...still is....for allegedly feigning injury to force his way out of the Club. Same accusation has been made about Gallagher, but folk refuse to believe it whereas in Vigur’s case it was taken as gospel. 

Double standards. 

Every player has the right to try and better himself, but it does seem that for some on here, if your face fits and you are a “good guy”, then you can do no wrong and can muck the Club about in ways that others get hammered for.


 

 

Excellent post, as I have said the whole affair stinks, but Gallagher only has 7 games of his Motherwell career left, and  then he is fair game for all the criticism he deserves in the former players thread, I wonder if the opinions of him will  change then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, star sail said:

I don't want to speak for dennyc but I think it just means that all players do not get treated equally. Vigurs was a wage thief if memory serves me correctly. He had a back problem and some fans did not believe it was real. Polworth is the current wage thief. Hastie was a traitor. Ainsworth only tried near contract extension time. Others were imposters.  The list goes on and on.  You just need to look at the comments over the last month regarding Roberts, Magloire, Lamie and Crawford from the starting 11 yesterday and you get the idea.

Maybe the point is that Gallagher is being shown a benefit of doubt that others would not be afforded. I would like to think that all the players and managers would be given the benefit of the doubt so I am pleased if Gallagher is being given that benefit. 

edit: sorry dennyc you just beat me to it.

No probs. You can speak for me any time. And spot on with those other names. Vagabonds every one of them! 

Share this post


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

Alan Burrows, at the AGM, stated that Declan Gallagher was out of contract in the summer. 

Splitting hairs I know but, if the extension clause was still active, he could have been justified in arguing that at that point his contract was due to expire in the summer, the trigger for the additional 1 year not having been met at that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for clarifying a few points Denny. There may be a few reasons why these players have been treated differently by our support. In the case of Hastie.  He only played a few good games for us whilst Gallagher had had a good year behind him. Hastie's situation was more clear cut with no confusion surrounding his position. The club also issued statements. As far as Gallagher is concerned, very little has actually been said. To that extent, not all, indeed not many, of our fans know what has happened. As Steelboy said though, some do. 

Last, but by no means least there were fans in the ground when Vigurs and Hastie were playing with us. There have been no fans this season. 

Share this post


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

Hastie was open and up front about leaving. No pretence. He got slaughtered on here by many for wanting to better himself, and being honest about it. And booed when he took to the pitch. Perth I think. Don’t see the same abuse heading Gallagher’s way and, if true, he has been doing a lot more manoeuvring re contracts than Hastie ever did. And we got good money for Hastie. 

Vigurs was crucified...still is....for allegedly feigning injury to force his way out of the Club. Same accusation has been made about Gallagher, but folk refuse to believe it whereas in Vigur’s case it was taken as gospel. 

Double standards. 

Every player has the right to try and better himself, but it does seem that for some on here, if your face fits and you are a “good guy”, then you can do no wrong and can muck the Club about in ways that others get hammered for.

And I’m not defending Gallagher. Far from it. Just comparing the reaction to his dealings and those of others who eventually moved on. 
 

 

I'm not sure it's anything like a "face fits" scenario at all. 

I can't remember too many other than the usual gullables thinking much about the Vigur's rumour, and Hastie and Gallagher's situations are completely different. The outrage about Hastie was pretty simple because the facts were out there - confirmed by the clubs - and it was felt by many (rightly or wrong) that we had been shafted by him. There's nothing other than forum speculation about Gallagher's contract. A few folk coming on here and saying "it's a fact" doesn't make it a fact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First I've been left reinvigorated by the quality of the debate in this thread, it truely what this place should be all about. A lot of good points raised by all parties.

I think the issue with Hastie was, we seen a youth academy boy hit the team and we felt we had another diamond. Nothing better than home grown (and cheap) but adding so much to the team. Long may it continue .... but it didn't, his streak as you'd expect caught the eye of suitors and he was approached. As a support of a club with limited means, seeing what we thought was a fine addition to the team, an addition we may not have been able to acquire on the open market move on without getting our payback was seen as a poor return. We got a full 3 years out of Campbell and Cadden before him and moving for £400k was tough to see at the time. Hindsight however is a remarkable thing, 2 years on and that £400k seems like we robbed them. I take no glee in that. Hastie will be set for life by the age of 24, even if his career is destined to be lower league mediocrity he will have taken more out this game than many ever hope to.

Never one to shy away from voicing his opinion or poor judgement, Dec has certainly had a topsy turvy 2020. I have no doubts he was offered enhanced terms alongside the captaincy, whither they were demanded or offered maybe that will come out in Flow's memoirs. However, seemingly astutely, an appearance trigger was put added to his contract in a "if you do well, so do we" mutually beneficial arrangement. If he continued his performances from the season before he could be off before the summer window ended or in January for a tidy sum if someone needed their defence shored up until May. A solid season not attracting suitors would guarantee a further year of stability too. However this season has been up and down in terms of form and decision making. Israel was a particular low point for me but despite the dip Clarke still opted for him and to be fair he delivered in the really important matches by and large. The newspaper article in early January was a gamble and both highlighted bad optics of the decision to do it and brought his probably non-disclosed contract dealings into public. That article was purely "hey I'm looking to move, but do so quickly because I'll cost you a lot more in a few weeks". Bosman, agents and social media now have only enhance the mercenary nature of modern footballers. His stock has risen in C&A and while happy to seemingly take the extra wedge, the caveat to that now seemingly is problematic. It's not too far removed from what transpired with Tait in terms of the player not happy with the benefit of hindsight and going to the press to try and reverse things in their favour.

I suspect the answer given at the AGM was factually correct (at the time) but definitely very political in nature.

The current malaise in the camp has been echoed from various sources as you would expect when things aren't going to plan. It did seem at odds of Robinson's very public sharing that footballing ability was key but only if their social media behaviour, general demeanour and dressing room interaction would be significant to their recruitment. We can't ignore the fact that travel restrictions will be affecting many players who would regularly on days off visit the north West of England and Highlands to be with family. But I don't think we are alone in the SPFL, I'd suspect most clubs have a number of players in the same boat, if we have a trialist and don't opt for him then theres a good chance he'll end up at St Johnstone or Killie or vice versa. Why it seemingly would affect ours over others is hard to work out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clubs never reveal their hands when it comes to signings and contract negotiations.

Agents are the biggest shysters on the face of the planet.

Fans make up wild conspiracy theories based on their own prejudices.

No facts were harmed in the making of this story.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, CoF said:

A few folk coming on here and saying "it's a fact" doesn't make it a fact. 

Basically this.....

It also could be that any extension trigger clause would have to be agreed by the player or mutually agreed by both parties. 

I am no Gallacher fanboy. He had an excellent season last one around. This one not so much. 

I would rather wait until the end of the season to find out what is gospel than a few spurious comments / claims. 

Share this post


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

Clubs never reveal their hands when it comes to signings and contract negotiations.

Agents are the biggest shysters on the face of the planet.

Fans make up wild conspiracy theories based on their own prejudices.

No facts were harmed in the making of this story.

Amen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we've had it wrong all along and it was actually his agent holding the gun to his head!?  Poor Big Decy being forced out of the club he loves by a nasty, unscrupulous agent (who definitely does not at all act on behalf of his client in everything he does) in pursuit of that elusive final big pay day.

Actually come to think of it you could argue that meant Big Decy was actually holding the gun to his own head! It gets stranger every minute.

On a totally unrelated matter, I have just come in to possession of some magic beans I'm looking to offload. Anyone interested PM me for details. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree about those stating Ainsworth only played when near a contract extension. I don't questions that guys attitude at all.

He was a winger that went through a variety of highs and lows and was not an "imposter"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

Twitter @MotherwellFC

×