Leaderboard

If every one of the out of contract players had accepted new terms, we could have ended up with exactly the same defence we completed the season with. Possibly except for Gent who many considered the best and most dynamic of the lot. Fortunately a couple have rejected terms as you say so that will not happen, But the concerning message is that the club, with or without SK's approval, were prepared to run 100% with a group of players that regularly underperformed as a unit. No offence, but would you have been comfortable starting the season with, Kelly, SOD, McGinn, Mugabi, Butcher, Casey, Gent (maybe) Blaney as first choices with Wilson, Ross, Oxborough as back ups? Our Board and Manager apparently were. We got away with it this season. Not so sure we would have next season given the senior players would all be a year older. At least now with Kelly and Butcher moving on there is some scope for change. But not as much scope as there should have been. All about opinions though.

Calm down ffs, the transfer window is not even open yet, it will be the same as every other year weeks of rumours every one of which will be labelled as pish etc. Then we will bring in a few in the last few days and hours, who incidentally will also be labelled pish before they've kicked a ball, it's the Motherwell way.

Must admit I thought you'd already started 😄

Other than gent not one defender from last season would be missed but yet we have retained mcginn and offered terms to odonnell and mugabi and with casey and blaney still under contract,it's almost certain that our defensive options for next season will be vastly made up of guys that kept 3 clean sheets all season, considering kettlewell has been moaning about our defending, especially of late,keeping most of them around for next season is madness.

I'm saying that I find it staggering that anyone at the Club (or any fan) could justify every one of our defenders of last season being retained for the season ahead. With the possibility of the exact same defence next season as last. And I can only assume SK was on board with that possibility. I doubt whether any of them are fucking idiots though, which makes it even more baffling. But, hey, I'm only a fan that witnessed those defenders regularly under perform and a fan that believed change was essential. Particularly at Centre Back.

Yeah he was pitched in for his debut after Paul Shane managed to get "injured" in a warm up on the opening game of the 2009/10 season vs St Johnstone and for the next three seasons he never missed a game. Scored a few fantastic free kicks against Rangers and Odense.

Fair do's they won't be a year older compared to season end. I stand corrected. Apologies. They will be a year older than they were when last season started, and so on throughout the season. Not so relevant regards youngsters but a factor to be considered with senior players as games mount up. Especially if we have two good cup runs......I live in hope. I agree with your views re Gent, SOD, Mugabi and Kelly. With only limited viewing admittedly, Wilson is the only youngster that I think is anywhere near first team ready. And he was farmed out on loan last season after the League Cup so not clear what plans they have for him. Happy he has another year.

Not just the majority. Every one of them. 100%! Either already under contract, offered terms or requested back on loan. Add in retained youngsters (Ross and Wilson) and that would not have left much, if any, room for additions. I don't think that every one of them needed to go, but because of contracts expiring we had the chance to make wholesale changes to a poorly performing area of the team and at the same time ending up with a bloated squad and a massively increased wage bill. Not so sure that will be possible now.

If you spend half as much time studying as you do posting on here, you'll sail through your exams!

If seeking to retain the majority of a defence that's only kept three clean sheets all season is his idea of improvement, we’re doomed.

To be fair it was me that suggested that - and it's likely not the case given he sees the players much more than any of us. I would have thought it a bit odd though given the rest of the defence were offered terms if Mugabi wasn't. Particularly as Butcher who featured far less than he did was offered a new contract. (I don't know anyone at Fir Park and have zero inside info). I also don't think he'll be away if we have a bad start to the season - we often don't start the season well irrespective of who is or isn't playing.

And we're potentially missing out on other targets while we wait on odonnell and mugabi making up there minds,if we do our usual we will still be waiting after the season has started.

Mugabi played at the heart of the defence in the away wins against Rangers and Hearts and the draw at Celtic Park. He was immense in all three games. There is no way we are going to sign two better players for that central role. People want to talk about errors but he made far fewer stupid errors this season than McGinn or SOD. If Bevis stays we are looking at needing a new player for the central position and someone better than Blaney for the left hand side. I think it's pretty clear now that Kettlewell has no intention of overhauling the team and is scared to sign players because he know's he not up to the task.

and the managers say should be final in any club , if SK didnt want him hed be on his way.

I;m a day late I don't know if me eyes are decieving me we offered Bevis Mugabi a new deal? Seems like a lovely guy but hes a poor Cb and definetley not someone we need going forward

I don't think finishing 9th is satisfactory however it reflects the ongoing slump we are in as a club which has been underway for a few seasons. We are loosing our competitiveness in the league I feel. As for Kettlewell, he seems like a genuine guy and a good coach. I'm not in the bin him camp however I don't believe we should renew his contract beyond next season right enough as I can't see us making progress with him at the helm beyond what we are currently achieving. I don't think the product on the park has been great for much of his tenure either. The ethos at the minute that the clubs aim every season is purely to avoid relegation is unacceptable. That isn't being unrealistic, it's a game and a competition. The whole point is to compete and aim up the way. To publicly have the mindset that all we have to do every year is avoid relegation cannot be good for mindsets and sets a bar of mediocrity. If the clubs core aim every year is simply to avoid relegation what's the point?

Of course there will be joint discussions between the three. However, SK will be very well aware indeed and extremely well informed about the current state of the market including wage levels. He will have discussed with Nick Daws the level and kind of players he's looking for. The CEO will will also have an input I'd guess about wage levels. In short, Nick Daws will have a very good idea about the type of player to scout and the their likely wage demands. All that said it will be SK's decision and his alone as to whether to offer an existing player a contract or or not. He'll give the CEO a steer about wage levels to offer. It wouldn't be the first time that a manager of ours has said to a CEO (or equivalent) "Don't offer him above £x as he's not worth it." Also not the first time a CEO or equvalent has said to the manager "We'll push the boat out to keep him" and the manager replied "No we won't I don't want to keep him". What it boils down to is can SK live with a player's weaknesses or does he think we can do better by bringing someone else in. These matters will be down to SK and him alone, albeit with input from the others.

Not defending the original post at all. I dont think for a minute that SK is an idiot. However, your post seemed to suggest that he could be absolved from any blame in re-signing players because others would have input. If we are offering Mugabi a new contract its because SK has said to the CEO he would like to keep him. What that offer is, is obviously a different matter. But we all know the defence needs a re-fit and you cant do that by keeping the majority of players that performed so poorly in it.

All valid. But my point....and I think Steelboys's.....is that our Manager decided every single one of our defence last season contributed enough to be retained. Yeah, we may debate the merits of each player and have different opinions. But that defence was simply not good enough so attempting to retain them en masse baffles me. And I say that as someone who rates Kettlewell.

Good point. Most of us would agree that our defence was poor last season. That also involves the midfield but we'll leave that aside for the time being. SK also commented about this weakness so he knew about it. Presumably coaching was not successful in improving our rearguard. That being the case, I simply cannot comprehend why the defence is being left pretty much as is. The only reasonable explanation I can come up with is the one which Weeyin has proposed; that is some defenders, currently under contract will be shipped out. Quite simply I'm scratching my head.

I wouldn't say McGinn was done, been one of our most consistent performers. Still got a role to play. As for Halliday, you don't like him, we get it. I am not convinced either but let's see how next season pans out

Now it's confirmed we are wasting tens of thousands if not a 6 figure sum on Andy Halliday anyone at the club or Society who give us any pish about low budgets or shortfalls should be tar and feathered. It's actually funny that they are too feart to announce that they will still be paying Obika next season. McGinn is absolutely done, the idea that he might be here for another two years is mental. Kettlewell is actually thick enough to start with the exact same defence that only kept 3 clean sheets in 41 games. This season he got the good will from his initial KVV led turnaround. That's well and truly gone and if we keep the same shitty form with no Livingston there as a cushion we need to get shot of him at the first opportunity.

That's a bit too close to home pal