dennyc

You could be right on the same country moves. Each country can apply their own thinking as not bound by International criteria as set out. Our lot are all very secretive about how they arrive at a figure and I believe Accies said they were warned not to reveal any details. All they could do was register how unhappy they were. Just shows the nonsense of not adopting the rules that apply cross border. That would be much more open and consistent. No wonder Clubs often work out a deal to avoid a Tribunal up here.

I found a report on training Compensation and the Solidarity Scheme. States that Uefa and individual Associations decided upon the amount it took to train a player on an annual basis and came up with a payment table. Then they took into account the level of each team and adjusted the fee based on that. I did not find anything about wages offered by either club as being a factor in the calculation. Not saying that was not added later but I cannot confirm. I tried to copy the calculation section and post it here but every time I tried it was blacked out. Not sure why. And I could not figure out a way to post it. I searched ' How is training compensation calculated by Uefa' in Google and then clicked on the top result ' E A Sports Law' . If interested, stick with it for a few paragraphs and you'll find the bit I am quoting from. For info, the Yanks were late in joining the scheme and initially placed their Clubs in the lowest possible grading (4).... as a way to minimise payments. Cadden was the first real test of their stance. In time they were forced to elevate the grading of the US teams to ensure fairness..

Again an issue that needs addressed. The Training Compensation that applies when a young player leaves his parent club (eg. Max Johnston to Graz) is based on some magic calculation linked to ages 12 to 21. A set fee per year developed. Like you I don't think that has kept pace with the market. The Solidarity Compensation which relates to moves thereafter (eg. if MJ joined Juventus tomorrow) is % based so will increase with the market. 5% of the full transfer fee is hived off and shared to those that developed a player from age 12 to 21. Pro rata. . It certainly amounts to very little if MJ moves for £3m. Perhaps £125k only. We would be due around 7 years worth of the 5%. So maybe that % needs to be upped to 10 or 20% in line with commonly agreed add ons? Seems reasonable Also the fact that both schemes apply to cross border moves only is a joke. For transfers within the same Country I think UEFA wanted to leave the local Association to deal with it. Maybe because of volumes or maybe to not stand on the home Authoritie's toes. Scotland could just adopt the same schemes if they wanted but that would require common sense. Accies felt they were shortchanged with the outcome of the Ferguson Tribunal.

I agree 100%. He looks uncomfortable playing out with too many passes playing our midfielders into trouble or being intercepted. His punts upfield have been closer to me than our strikers. He also seems to think whatever goalie we play has the ball skills of Leo Messi. He did fine for St J playing as an out and out stopper CB but that limited role does not suit our brave new world. He needs to show he can adapt or I think JBA will look elsewhere. Time is running out for him to prove himself. Saturday would be a good start.

Yes please. And it suggests JBA has replacements in mind. Quite honestly I think we don't have any central defenders ....by trade or makeshift...that merit a first team place. So I'm hoping we see more than one depart. To be replaced by at least two that are comfortable playing out as the Manager expects. Might save me a few 'moments'.

Just to add to the complications and confusion. It really is a minefield. Clubs who are losing a youngster (despite offering a new contract) very often do a deal with the new Club that bypasses the compensation rules that apply to cross border only movement. Like I believe we did with McKinstry to Leeds. Maybe building in a larger up front fee with a lower sell on %. Or the other way round. That may suit both Clubs depending upon their financial situation at the time. For internal transfers the compensation rules usually do not apply. Like with Hastie to Rangers. (Individual Associations can adopt the International rules if they like, but Scotland don’t). So we did a deal with Rangers rather than go to a dodgy tribunal whose decision is final and a one off payment. Sometimes with no add on %. So you can get screwed. I understand we got £350k for Hastie plus decent add on had he moved on for big money. A Tribunal might not have been so generous. We will never know. Best recent example of a tribunal outcome is Lewis Ferguson to Aberdeen. Accies got £250k and a small add on %, the level of which was not disclosed. No appeal allowed despite Accies going public that they felt hard done to. Compare that to our Hastie deal. Aberdeen certainly scored when he moved to Italy. Accies may have still been due further training compensation if Ferguson had then left Italy before a certain age….. but I’m not 100% sure on that. It is debatable and not specifically covered in the rules I read. I think Motherwell have actually done pretty well over the years, often successfully negotiating with the new Club. Bailey Rice a recent example. Certainly for youngsters not fully established in our first team. We were unable to negotiate a better deal for MJ though as Graz were happy to go with the set compensation arrangements. No discussion. The ball was in their court as Max had decided to move on. No bad feeling from me on that one as he did what he thought best for himself. And he had only joined us age 12 and appeared in under 20 games for our first team. So very different from Miller. We also lost out initially on Cadden as the US were not in the International arrangement. And when they signed up under pressure from the ruling bodies, they were regarded as a lower tier country where lower amounts were due. History wise. After the Bosman ruling that players could just leave at Contract end with no compensation due (in line with other occupations) Clubs from several countries approached UEFA and FIFA asking them to set up a scheme that rewarded Clubs for developing youngsters. Until they came up with the current scheme Clubs were due nothing. That was seen as a barrier to youth development. So why bother developing kids? The present arrangement is something that helps. Covers cross border only though which is a flaw in the system imo. Like many countries, Scotland opted to go to a tribunal for internal transfers if Clubs do not agree a deal. At least that recognises the need for some reward for youth development I guess. But it is not perfect. That’s my take on things anyway. Others may know differently. Told you it was a nightmare.😀

My understanding is that, to qualify for compensation, a contract has got to have been offered by the 'losing' club. Otherwise that Club is seen to be just releasing a player at contract end. Like happens to so many younger players. Otherwise every player that is let go under a certain age would entitle clubs to compensation. Basically to qualify for compensation you have to demonstrate that you wanted to keep a player. For that reason a contract offer has to be made before a player's existing contract expires. If you like you can check it all out by doing a search along the lines of ' Training and Solidarity Compensation payments in football'. Two different schemes. Details age requirements, cross border requirements and contract basis amongst lots of other detail . Pages of it though so a glass of wine (white) might help! Happy reading.

For Motherwell to have received compensation .....£350k.....from Sturm Graz, Johnston had to have rejected an offer from Motherwell before his contract expired. Otherwise no compensation due. Thems the rules. So he had a choice and opted to turn down our offer. The only real question is whether Motherwell could have persuaded him to extend earlier, perhaps when he returned from Cove? But lets be honest. He did ok on loan at QOS and Cove but it was only when he featured regularly in our first team that his performances took off. By then any team in Europe with a decent scouting system would be keeping an eye on him given his media coverage in Scotland as a possible young player of the year.. And no doubt quietly sounding out his Agent/Dad. IMHO, the Club could have done little more and I believe he had already made his mind up to go overseas well before his contract expired. If I recall correctly nobody was surprised that he moved to Austria. Rumours were rife well before he left. As WeeYin says, how on earth do you make a any player sign a new contract if they don't want to? And if you convince them to sign by offering daft money/length of contract then you could be stuck with someone who fails to make the grade or regresses. We have been caught out that way before and possibly even now. It's certainly an issue that Clubs with a limited budget have to manage. Also, in comparison to Johnston, Miller spent much more of his early years at Motherwell. Johnstone (I think) only joined us at age 12 and had no previous links to us. So perhaps LM felt a greater loyalty to us, received different advice from his father and so found it easier to extend.

The Forest/Napoli/Bologna transfer part seems genuine and now widely reported that Forest have upped their bid to Bologna for Ndoye. A replacement for Elanga who left for Newcastle.. Miller might be a fabricated add-on but the more the Forest thing pans out the more it lends authenticity to the story. We will find out soon I guess.

So be it. The rumour has spread to Italy though as I read it on an Italian rumours page. Time will tell.

Might not work out of course but the rumour in Italy is that the fee is £5m and that Lewis Ferguson highly recommended LM to Bologna. Talks are ongoing re the transfer of a winger called Ndoye from Bologna to Nottingham Forest for around £35m. The player involved wants to go to England and has agreed terms, but Napoli are also after him although offering less than Forest. Talk is that Bologna are using the two clubs interest to push up the price. Should be resolved soon, maybe even by tomorrow. Great move for LM and Motherwell if it comes off.

Seeded you don't get Celtic Rangers Aberdeen or Hearts/Hibs last 16 most seasons. Play down the value of seeding if you like but it does give you a better route to the QF. The last 16 draw is a totally different animal if you are seeded. And, looking to your example, St Mirren away is better than Celtic etc away. Getting through the group is the main thing so job done. But given the advantages the top league team is given throughout the group stage, being unseeded in the next round is an opportunity missed.

Congrats on the results. All that hard work paid off. 👏

Funny how not being seeded is disregarded when we are unlikely to be seeded. I get the point that any team can get a tough draw, seeded or unseeded. And with so few teams involved that possibility exists. But avoiding the the likes of Celtic, Rangers, Aberdeen, Hibs in the last 16 cannot be underplayed. Give me Ross County away or Falkirk or Ayr at Fir park any time over those options. Less chance of us blowing it against those teams than against any of the teams joining at the knock out stage. But we are getting ahead of ourselves. Tonight could go either way.

Even if we get 3 points I don't think that guarantees us being seeded. Celtic, Rangers, Aberdeen, Hibs, Dundee Utd plus 3 best group winners are seeded. There are still more than three teams that could end up with 12 points if my arithmetic is correct.....Alloa/Airdrie, Ayr, Thistle, Hearts, Killie and St Johnstone. Also Falkirk can get to 11 points and are well ahead of us on goal difference. So when we win we will just have to wait and see how it all works out. Unseeded and at home to Alloa would work.

I agree. And the more frustrated Stam got the deeper he got. No surprise given the lack of quality coming from out wide or through the middle. Often in space and looking for the ball, but ignored. Wilson is just terrified to make a mistake so plays backwards more often than not. I lost count of the number of times he had acres of space in front of him but chickened out. Confidence seems totally shot. Although willing, Sparrow just cannot be relied upon. Defensively both are weak so not sure why they start. The only cutback that created a worthwhile chance first half was sclaffed wide by Maswanhise. Pity it did not fall to Stam as that might have got him up and running. I'm guessing Maswanhise will delight and frustrate us in equal portions throughout the season. My first game this season and I was looking forward to the bright new world I've been reading about. But, even allowing for the weather and the pitch, I was underwhelmed. Facing a team two divisions below us, who were goalless and thumped in their previous game, and who had only brought in 40% of their matchday squad the day before, I expected more. Not miracles but more. Sure we had lots of the ball but what's the point if you go nowhere with it? Eventually resorting to long distance shots that are easily blocked or saved. And I get that it's early days and Askou is still experimenting with players coming to terms with what he expects of them. I thought many looked hesitant and more often than not took the easy option. With the result that we spent most of the game overplaying in midfield. And we got off the hook when their player made a complete hash of their chance to equalise late on from a throw in that seemed to bamboozle our defence. Positives? It's a better watch than SK delivered. We won and kept a clean sheet with what looked like a second choice back four. Balmer and SOD did ok although under little pressure. Stenny's big striker did make it uncomfortable at times but with little threat. SOD scoring...just. Connolly also coped well with everything he was asked to deal with. Of the new recruits, I thought Fadinger looked busy and keen to get involved, trying to move us forward. We missed him when he went off. The fans backed the team to the end and SOD appeared to have an abuse free match. On to Morton who will provide a much sterner test. Improvement needed if we are to progress from the group. Looking forward to see how we perform against a team that might actually set out to win a match. Imrie will certainly have them fired up for a game they have to win. Cannot see them playing for penalties as far to much of a lottery. Hopefully we get a decent turnout who get right behind the team.

Thanks. Looking at the web site quoting Larbert, 4 hours parking at Asda on Saturday (2pm to 6pm) costs £2

Thanks for this. Appreciated.

Gordon was poor in his latter games for St J and after a brief encouraging start with us he then reverted to little better than the rest. Positional and ball retention, trying to play out hardly inspiring. There has to be a player in there given his earlier St J performances and I think he found playing in a back three especially difficult. I have hopes that in a back four, concentrating on defensive duties, we will see the player we hoped we had signed. But he needs a partnership and I do not think Balmer is that player. So yes we need a CB that the Manager knows and trusts.

Oh for the days when the official MFC site kept fans properly informed. The lack of info regarding the development teams is really poor. I used to go to a fair few midweek youth games when Turnbull, Hastie, Scott and some other potential future stars were playing. For some reason they played a number of games at Kelty. And very entertaining they were. Craigen in charge for many of them. Almost every game Alan Burrows was there updating fans live...internet permitting....via the Club site. But then he was a fan. No reason that could not be done nowadays but there appears to be a lack of willing within the current set up. Too busy trying to win awards with their video output perhaps. Few fans have any clue as to the players in our youth set up. A start I suppose that they listed those recently awarded contracts> But will we ever hear if they actually play any games.

I agree every signing is a gamble. So all any Club can do is minimise the chances of failure. But I think in this case it was as close as you are going to get to guaranteeing success. I think there is no similarity in any way to the Hendry signing or the risk attached. With Biereth we signed a player who not only scored goals but was physically suited to the Scottish game.....as demonstrated in his first appearance (I think) when as a sub he bullied us into a home win over Hibs. I think that lack of physicality and determination is what Hendry was lacking, We did not discover those negatives until the deal was done. .So score one for lessening the risk factor re Biereth. He was suited to our game and had the correct mentality.. Arsenal were adamant Biereth was not for sale as he was viewed as one for their future. Just not right then. Spurs wanted shot of Hendry. Another plus point on the Biereth risk assessment. For once the hype of 'Even short term, we are fortunate to get a player of this calibre' was pretty accurate. Clearly when he did well for us and in Austria, the offer of a few million up front was something Arsenal saw as too good to miss given he still had no route into their first team. A big mistake by them as it turned out. No injury record of note or a rehabilitation/career rebuild in mind. Not a player looking to top up his pension. Like so many we have taken a much greater risk with. Now referred to as 'The Kettlewell Signing Policy'. Biereth was a Loan deal (sadly). Risk minimised. We had an out if it was a disaster. Unlike Henry who we signed on a permanent deal.......for £200k? So, in respect of signing a youngster whether permanently or on Loan, I think the Biereth deal was as guaranteed as any Club could hope for. We were fortunate to get him but it was not luck that it worked out as well as it did. Just all too brief a stay sadly.

Talking of history, did you look at his goals per match record in the U18 Premier League? 23 in 33 games......and 15 assists... in case you missed it. He was loaned out because he was far too good for that age level and his route into the first team was blocked by players who cost millions. If that is taking a risk then can we please find more risks of that kind.

I guess Miller chooses which he prefers. The deal being we allow to let him to go if we receive the release figure which we signed up to. So we would have little choice but to accept his decision. I am certain other players at other clubs have faced that very situation. No obligation on him to take the higher offer. Effectively in that situation the player has the power. What’s the option? We refuse to sell to the lower bidder, he digs in and stays until contract end? Joins the Club he wanted to anyway. Goes for a development fee? Thankfully not with us, but others have gone down that route. Sitting tight I mean. Say Celtic offer 5.5 but Napoli offer 4.5 with longer term and better wages. I assume, as fans, we would be supportive if he chose Italy. As long as we get the release figure which was agreed. But being a good guy he would take the Celtic deal to get us more cash? Or perhaps not. But as I said, all speculation. Miller and his Dad will decide and we’ll go along with whatever they choose. Hopefully he has a long list to choose from. Then we put the cheque in the Bank. At the end of the day that is what really matters to MFC. Much as we all want what is best for Lennon Miller money talks. Certainly when it runs into millions.

Apparently Celtic are about to get £16m for Kuhn having already raked in £4m following Frimpong's move to Liverpool. And some lesser amounts from other departures. So no surprise they are back in for Miller with an increased offer compared to January. But they will still want him on the cheap with a crap sell on clause. That's the transfer model they insist upon and usually get away with in Scotland. John McGinn being the exception and well played Hibs on that one. Following his Scotland appearances, the talk was that Miller and his advisers preferred a move overseas. Hopefully that is still the intention. SPECULATION ALERT! 🙁 What I find a bit concerning is the comment that Celtic are aware of the price Motherwell have set. Hopefully purely media talk as they do Celtic's bidding. But it makes me wonder if the Board agreed a release clause of £4.5m when Miller extended his contract? An amount that seemed a good figure back then. IF they did, then then we would have little option if Celtic offered the agreed amount AND Miller wanted to join them. Perhaps in the absence of an overseas/English team meeting or exceeding the release figure. At the end of the day Miller and his family will decide where he ends up. Motherwell will be delighted take the money from whoever offers it. That's the reality of the situation . Best we can hope for is that Celtic start a bidding war, with Miller opting to join whoever offers the most. I also hope he makes a choice that works out best for him long term. And I doubt that would be Celtic. He seems more ambitious than that.

I'm really not interested in how Twente played, good or bad, this season or last. And I could not care less about Falkirk or Edinburgh City. All of whom were, like us, playing their first game of the season. So all the same qualifications apply. What I am interested in is Motherwell and I expected more from them yesterday, even with all those valid comments about first game, new Manager, opposition, new tactics etc etc. And that's fair comment. Or am I and others not allowed to say we were disappointed in what we saw? Not overly concerned, but disappointed. Rightly or wrongly I expected more. The performance of our experienced defenders was poor and they looked far from comfortable at being asked to play out from the back, with Ward also struggling supporting as sweeper. Midfield and up front we looked ponderous, with little link up play. Lack of pace all over the pitch. Little threat up front. I challenge anyone who watched the game to say my assessment was wrong. . The youngsters that came on performed well, which also highlighted how off it the first choices were. But for me those youngsters were the only positive yesterday. Again that fact raises questions. And the budget available to the opposition is irrelevant. At times last season those same players performed well against opposition with far greater resources than us. Even when playing against superior opposition, I came away from some games feeling we had did ourselves justice., despite losing. Not yesterday. Will we improve? Most definitely. Am I saying we will struggle this season? No . Did I expect more from our established players? Yes. Will the new Manager be more aware now of the challenges he faces? Undoubtedly. The criticism posters are getting for raising valid points is nonsense.