dennyc

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.

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.

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.

Purely for football reasons of course. 😀

Good news. SOD and Slattery are two I definitely wanted to stay.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Hilarious. Nonsense but hilarious. Welcome to SOL.

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?

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.

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.