dennyc
-
Posts
1,045 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
47
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by dennyc
-
-
Thanks David
I do get where you are coming from. I agree with some of that but not all.
As a Club I have watched us put poorer and poorer quality on the pitch season after season. And yet I still go along each week 😀. For context compare each position over that same time period. You appear to disagree and I respect that. But eventually imo that decline in quality on the pitch will have disastrous results. We have escaped such punishment so far but we are riding our luck. Especially as most of our so called peers (who have experienced similar decline but which in a perverse way has helped us) are now heading in the opposite direction, or are taking steps to do so. Folk may not like their various solutions but at least those Clubs are trying to move forward. And not just Clubs currently in the top league. Unless we do something similar I can see us falling further and further behind.
I am not privy to the inner workings of the Club....or Society....but my feeling is that the current structure and funding model is a barrier to improvement. I sense that the Club does not run as efficiently as it once did and I have less faith in our Board than I have had in the past. I think that ties in with the operational/financial clean up you believe is essential? We differ in that I don't think a tidy up is enough.......or is likely. I was being given those same assurances way back when the Society was initially established and also when Hutchison appeared on the scene.
I also have been told that there is friction between the Society and certain Club Board members. May be bullshit of course but it is what I was told from someone I pay heed to. ( I sound like Steelboy now) If we wish to stay at the top table I believe substantial change is required across the board. I do hope the Society can continue to play a major role, preferably as the majority shareholder.
You often make play of the fact that, as you see it, any major Investor will insist upon overall control and a financial profit on their input. Investment being the word you highlight. No doubt that is often how it works, but there are situations where that is not exactly the case. Again you or others shoot down any examples that are quoted. I'll wait and see what any offer from Barmack entails, and then I'll cast my vote.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, David said:
The outside party involvement will depend on a few points though, won't it? For example, will they want majority control? Or, will they be happy to put their money into an entity yet have no overall say on club decisions?
It's also worth asking exactly what 'growing the club' actually means? Scottish football is such that there's a definitive ceiling for any club not called Celtic or Rangers. So, what is growth? Top six finishes? We already manage that on occasion, and we've seen clubs who have thrown a lot more money around than us not manage to nail down top six as a given every season.
Perhaps Growth could be better described as halting a decline rather than trying to achieve levels that put the Club at risk. Growing back to where we ranked only a few years ago perhaps?
Direct question David as I am genuinely interested. Overall, do you think the Club has been in decline in recent times.....on and off the pitch? Compared to say 10, 5 and 3 years ago. Motherwell specifically and not Scottish football in general. If you do, how do you see us rectifying matters or should we just continue as is, and accept whatever outcome that delivers? I think we must be proactive.
I do believe that is the dilemma the Board have. And although I have doubts about some Board members, I think on the whole they are genuine in trying to find a solution. As we all are I guess.
-
3
-
-
2 minutes ago, wellgirl said:
Me too!! (no surprises there) 😂
Purely for football reasons of course. 😀
-
2 hours ago, wellgirl said:
That's sod signed on (just passing on a rumour courtesy of my brother). 🤣
Good news. SOD and Slattery are two I definitely wanted to stay.
-
2
-
-
53 minutes ago, weeyin said:
They have had options, but it hasn't stopped many of them from being relegated anyway. Dundee, Dundee Utd, Killie, Hearts (for slightly different reasons), Hibs etc.
So even those extra resources don't guarantee league safety, never mind better performances.
Nobody is saying it does.
But it helps them to bounce back if demotion happens. Wonder how we would have done in the situation they found themselves in. Hopefully we will never know. What we need is longer term stability. Having been in the top League for ages will be little comfort if we crash and burn. Other teams are moving forward.
Hopefully any investment we secure can help us to extend our superb record, and at the same time enable us to react if the need arises, without losing our status.
History is exactly that. Bask in it all you like, but we need to look forward.
-
2 minutes ago, ropy said:
If any investment is not transformational I would use that money for structural improvements sustaining the club for the future.
With the information made available so far, I actually thought that was the plan. Structural stability supporting a productive youth system. In time that brings an end to operational losses and eventually leads to a stronger club with improved onfieldf rewards. The 'fix' is not going to happen overnight.
Only on here have I read anything about Barmack's funding being used to immediately improve the first eleven.
3 hours ago, wellfan said:My view of the ‘status quo’ is we carry on as we are, continue to be outbid on Premiership level players by our peers, and soon enough we’ll find ourselves struggling to keep pace with those peers. That scenario will likely lead to an annual struggle to stay in the Premiership and with little much else to play for.
Another point is that everything else in the world is so much more expensive now, and the only way to absorb that cost, let alone keep pace, is to seek more financial input/output than the ‘status quo’. That could be through external
investment or the Well Society pulling its socks up. Otherwise, I think we’ll play ourselves into the Championship in a few years.As for the Status Quo, I think this is pretty much spot on. The decline in quality over the years is already there for everyone to see. Other clubs have experienced similar issues, but it seems they have options available which we do not. I do believe the refreshed Society Board are trying to effect change and overcome the barriers they face. In reality that might not be enough though, making external support essential. On the correct terms of course.
-
Just now, wellgirl said:
And they call Kettlewell an overthinker 😜
Lol. Nothing wrong with SK overthinking........as long as everybody on here agrees with him.
I'll join Grizzlyg in saying well done for persisting with the Degree despite your Jon Obika like injury record.
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, wellgirl said:
Did we not stand by Turnbull when he had that injury and couldn't sign on for Celtic? What's the difference?
Why would Kettlewell offering Obika a coaching job mean we are acting like a registered charity?
The situation with Turnbull was entirely different. He was not retiring through injury and agreement was reached with Celtic that, when fit, the transfer was still a possibility. And he was still under contract in any event. Financially it made sense. £3m of sense. As well as being the right thing to do for a boy who who joined us straight from Nursery and with a playing career ahead of him. None of that applies to Obika.
As for acting like a charity, what is the rationale for awarding a coaching role to Obika? Is he qualified? Has he coaching experience? Has he given years of service to Motherwell? Did we need to fill the position given we were fourth top scorers last season? Or is he just a good guy that we decided to help out? There are plenty of other players that left us due to injury and they were not offered coaching jobs? Having said all that, let's hope he turns out to be the next Pep Guardiola.
-
16 minutes ago, bobbybingo said:
If he had the option, would he have chucked it and just walked away? Maybe his retirement came as a result of being offered the coaching position and there was never going to be a wage freed up.
Are we locking ourselves into contracts with extension options that take no account of fitness/ability to continue playing when the option kicks in? No legal get out clause in other words. When a player is signed it is routine practice for him to undertake a medical. David Turnbull being a classic example. Would it not be prudent to have such a medical requirement linked into any extension option? And if that medical is failed, then the option falls.
It is a shame for Obika and I wish him no harm, but we are not a registered charity and need to stop acting like one. He was lucky to be with us as a player given his medical history. And is he a qualified coach in any event?
-
41 minutes ago, Ya Bezzer! said:
in recent times you have
Alan Forrest (Hearts)
Luke McCowan (Dundee)
Robbie Deas & Lewis Mayo (Kilmarnock)
Simon Murray (Ross County)
James Penrice (Livingston, has signed for Hearts I think)
All good players that have come straight from Championship clubs..
And there are loads of players who have played at Championship level without coming directly from a Championship club - Nicky Deviln, Marley Watkins etc, etc.
You don't sign a league so I'm not sure about your analogy. It's about identifying individual players that fit into our system and style of play. We should be looking at all available markets - Ireland, England, Scotland, Scandanavia and elsewhere.
There are players in Championship that could do us a turn.
That's a fair point about the quality that is out there.
But, in reality, how many of those players you list could we have afforded? Wonder what their current wages are compared to what is on offer at Fir Park. Killie, Aberdeen, Hearts and even Dundee appear to be operating with a budget we cannot compete with. County have a sugar daddy, although that is coming to an end. The Brentford goalkeeper knocking us back for St Mirren is a classic example as is the rumour that our supposed Raith Rovers target is favouring a move to Dundee Utd. or even staying put.
As always it comes down to finance.
-
If it is the usual format we are away to Montrose and Clyde,
1st seeds are at home to second and fourth seeds if I recall it correctly
-
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.
-
1
-
-
41 minutes ago, wellgirl said:
To be fair if they are under contract there's very little the club can do. Plus Kelly and Butcher are away. Casey and Blaney are the ones still under contract?
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.
-
2
-
-
44 minutes ago, wellfan said:
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.
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.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:
That scenario did occur to me, although it would seem very strange. Making very public offers to players for some hidden reason, in the knowledge that they wouldn't accept them.
Or maybe it's as simple as retain them if they take a wage cut. And so reduce the wage bill overall. Finance ahead of quality which may well be a line SK has had to go along with. As well as referring to a Takeover, Caldwell also stated we cannot continue making losses each season. His words, not mine. (before Steelboy tells me we have millions in the Bank.)
-
2 minutes ago, wellfan said:
So what you're saying is that Daws and Caldwell are also fucking idiots for watching the likes of Mugabi and Butcher this season and thinking that their performances merited a new contract.
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.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, wellgirl said:
I believe from previous posts Steelboy rates Mugabi. He's part of the same defence that other players are getting pelters for (even if it's deserved).
We also surely have no control over what happens to Gent. That's up to the club he's contracted to. Surely it does come down to opinions? Some people rate Casey and Blaney and other people don't. I've seen people on twitter tonight saying they want Bevis signed back up ASAP.
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.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, weeyin said:
Even if you ignore the fact that Gent returned to his club and Butcher is gone, even you must have noticed Kelly is moving on - the only man to have started in defence 100% of those games.
Perhaps he is alluding to the fact that the entire defence of last season were good enough to be retained as far as SK is concerned. Kelly, Butcher, McGinn, Mugabi, SOD and Oxborough offered new contracts, Gent retained on loan and Casey and Blaney under contract. Matchday threads would suggest that not many would agree with Kettlewell.
Unusual as it is for me agree with Steelboy , that does suggest our Manager was happy with their contribution last season. I find that concerning. I took that to be the point that was being made. Even as back up I would question the merits of retaining several of that list.
As a fan, do you think our defence was anywhere near good enough last season? And would you have been happy to continue with all of those players?
-
1 hour ago, weeyin said:
I think that's a wee bit unfair.
While I'm not sure Celtic was the best choice for career development, he was doing OK there until he got injured again. He struggled to get back as a first team starter, partly because the team was winning (and no manager changes that) and partly because he's not necessarily an Angeball player - same reason a lot of Spurs players are being punted this summer.
He did make 100 appearances for them with 25 goals, so not exactly a bust
Cardiff was a terrible move, as they were an average, struggling Championship team when he moved there. The exact opposite of what he needed. Although I appreciate the need he felt for a change of scenery.
He's a confidence player, so I imagine if he finds somewhere he enjoys, his form will pick up again. It just goes to show though that we are pretty good at getting the best out of players.
I think this is a much fairer assessment of the situation.
Also it is sad to sense the joy that some fans seem to take from his recent struggles. Joining Celtic appears to be a move that some just cannot forgive.
Funny how nobody has mentioned that until he got injured in the League Cup final, he was the only outfield player that featured in every Ange team selection that season. In his absence McGregor O'Riley and Hatate eventually became automatic first choices, in a winning team. Despite that, Turnbull when fit still scored a fair number of goals as a substitute, often only featuring for 20 minutes or so. Since coming back from serious surgery and having to learn how to walk again he has earned a lot of money, has enjoyed numerous league and cup winners medals, played and scored in European ties in front of a full Celtic Park. Hardly a disaster or failure.
Admittedly he has not progressed as most, but perhaps not all, Motherwell fans had hoped but I honestly believe that in time he will return to a higher level. I agree Cardiff was not the best move for him but at least he no longer has to listen to Brendan Rogers every day. Hibs or Aberdeen next up possibly.
And as this is Ins and Outs chat as wellfan is keen to point out....I would be delighted if Campbell or Turnbull elected to return to rebuild their careers. But I think iAberdeen, Hearts, Hibs would be more likely destinations than Motherwell.
-
10 minutes ago, Great Balls of Shire said:
Is he the raith goalie?
Yeah. So I guess any potential signings from them will have to wait on the play off result. I think Easton is out of contract but I guess he might be tempted to re-sign if they beat County. Rovers have a few players who stand out in the Championship but whether they can step up a League is the gamble.
-
4 minutes ago, Billy_S said:
SOD is no wingback! He does not drive forward, he has no pace and no dribbling skills. Typically he will punt the ball from his own half or half way line into the middle. If he gets by the halfway line he needs to stop as a nose bleed has occurred.
Hilarious. Nonsense but hilarious. Welcome to SOL.
-
1
-
-
38 minutes ago, Great Balls of Shire said:
Why don't you all give Halliday a decent pre season to get fit before talking of ripping up legal agreements?
He might turn out to be OK.
He had a decent pre season at Hearts at then hardly featured. Tougher to get in their team than ours right enough. He has been with ourselves for months and has been poor, even when fit.
I'm not saying we should rip up any legal contract. If there is one we should honour it even if it hurts us financially. I'm questioning whether that legal agreement actually exists because the term PCA has not been quoted by MFC or the media. And if it does not, we should walk away given his four month trial with ourselves has been far from inspiring. We need players that can regularly contribute or we are likely to be in the same mess we were in at times this season. Paying good wages for little or no return. Have we learnt anything from Obika and Souare?
-
1 hour ago, David said:
It's for this reason that I find it difficult to believe that anyone putting money into a football club, especially in Scotland, can see it as an investment.
I work with investors regularly. They tend to make investments to increase their wealth, which is pretty much the definition of investment.
What we're looking for is someone to give us money for free.
And yet various clubs have succeeded in securing external finance, free or not I don't know. Not saying on terms that would be acceptable to MFC and it's fans, but clearly there are financially astute people out there that find the Scottish football scene of interest. Until the terms of any offer are released we are all just guessing.
If someone was to inject funds on the understanding they get (say) 20% on any transfer income until such time as their funding is repaid, is that really an investment as you describe it. More of a non dated loan to my thinking. Again, not saying such a deal is on the table, but it is another avenue that could provide funds without selling the family silver.
I guess it all comes down to what you consider investment. Let's see what Barmack offers, if anything.
-
8 minutes ago, StAndrew7 said:
Nicholson was quickly identified as the area for St Johnstone to attack; he's not a defender and it didn't surprise me that both goals came directly from that side of the pitch. Granted, the second one is a(nother) defensive howler but the initial move was down that side, too.
Playing as a wing back Nicholson put in more decent crosses than Gent did on the day. Defensively limited as you say but I do recall him winning a few balls in his own area first half and he stopped a certain goal late by tracking back in the second half. I was more worried about Bevis defensively than Nicholson.
And teams always attack both our wide areas. Be it Gent, Sod or anyone else playing wing back. Sunday was no different.
Not that I see Nicholson as the answer.
2024/25 Ins & Outs Discussion
in Club Chat
Posted
Don't know about numbers each club can have, but I read sometime after Brexit that football Clubs (maybe Rugby as well) could apply to the Government requesting that players who don't meet International appearances criteria be granted leeway. Representation was made that to strictly apply entry requirements in sport would affect ability to compete. So exceptions are now allowed. I think it is almost always an automatic thing. The numbers limitation rule would make good sense.