David

Worth remembering the last guy we signed from the Championship who had hit double figures in that league. He proceeded to come to us and score 3 goals in around 50 games. Saying that, I'm not against the club putting out some money on a transfer fee if the chances are good we could bring them in and get a season or two before selling them on for a profit.

Yes, but my question is, why re-sign so quickly with a club where you've only played two games in two years? Wouldn't it make more sense to consider moving somewhere else where you could also be a backup, but perhaps closer to home? Maybe a place where the manager sees your potential and might even give you a shot at the first team, even if you start out as a backup? It's a weird situation.

May 28th. Someone is getting a head start on the competition in the doomsday/naysayers championships.

I believe it ultimately depends on several factors, such as the player's salary and contract demands, as well as their expectations regarding playing time. For instance, if O'Donnell is willing to accept a contract that reflects his age and acknowledges that his playing time will likely be limited, then it makes sense to keep him. His experience can still be valuable to the team. However, I would have released Mugabi and Oxborough. We would have entered this summer without any senior keepers in our squad, so perhaps Kettlewell is thinking he could secure one good player for that position, but getting two would be unrealistic. In that context, I completely understand why we would want to re-sign Oxborough for another year. What puzzles me is why he signed so quickly. I could understand if he resigned himself to being a backup at Motherwell after not receiving any worthwhile offers elsewhere, but he didn't even wait for his current deal to expire. This suggests to me that he has possibly been promised something that made him forego other opportunities he might have had as a free agent this summer.

One reason he probably wasn't dropped is that the manager didn't seem to have much faith in the backup keeper. Kelly's role as captain undoubtedly played a significant part, as it should have, but it doesn't appear that Oxborough made the decision difficult for the manager. Let's be honest, if Kettlewell had rated Oxborough, he would have been given more opportunities during the cup. The fact that he played two games, conceded three goals in the first, and was essentially sidelined for the rest of the season before we got into August says a lot. I'm hoping Oxborough has re-signed to be the backup, although I'd be surprised if that's the case, as he could likely secure a backup role elsewhere under freedom of contract. The fact that he signed up so quickly suggests he's received some assurances for the coming season, which is concerning. It indicates a significant downgrade from Kelly and a cheaper option. It's also worth noting that Oxborough isn't a young prospect. At 25 years old, he has played around 51 games in his entire career. For comparison, he's only three years younger than Kelly, but Kelly has played 275 games.

Let's hope you were correct though. If we're offering Butcher terms for actual sporting and football reasons it means a few questions need asked.

Let's hope there's a relatively young keeper down south that we can bring up on loan who can do a job for us. As you say, there must be good keepers down south who can't get regular football who would be a better choice than Oxborough or Lewis.

Yeah, but usually, decent backup keepers who the club wishes to "keep sweet" are at least given the cup games to play in and so on. Was Oxborough ever given that beyond the first two in the group stages? I don't remember much about him, but didn't he concede three against Queen of the South in his first game last season in the early stages of the cup? I suspected when Kelly was looking like leaving that we'd be downgrading in that position, be it due to financial restrictions or whatever, and it looks likely to be true. Let's hope we can do what we've done in the past and grab a gem from somewhere on the cheap because the suggested combo of Lewis and Oxborough doesn't fill me with confidence.

With all the doomsday hints we've been drip fed about our finances these past few months I'm not sure we should be even pretending to do the decent thing. This is a business, and as such we shouldn't be offering to waste money on players who aren't likely to be in the managers plans. The idea of the guy who couldn't get a look-in when Kelly was having his worst season being our new number one gives me the fear. But I think you could be right. Which is exactly why we can't be offering deals to guys simply because it's the decent thing to do, as has been discussed on here already. We need to start becoming more ruthless in that regard. I wonder how any new investor would feel about that? Looking over the books and asks why a player who is hardly fit and never plays is offered a new deal, only to be told it was "the decent thing to do."

That's my point though, it will come down to what type of player Dawes has managed to find. A club operating at our level in the market will be fairly limited when it comes to the quality we'd hope to get, as you best believe that any players on our radar will also be on the radar of other clubs in our league. Would I be surprised if Kettlewell has spoken to Dawes over the past few weeks and they have both come to the conclusion that there isn't much better out there than what we have already? I would not. Kettlewell and his team aren't daft. I don't think they'd be offering new deals to the likes of O'Donnell, Mugabi, McGinn and Butcher if they had earmarked targets who are better than them. The question then is, do we release the likes of Mugabi and watch him join a Dundee United, St Mirren or whatever, and run the risk that we're left at the final kick trying to find someone better?

See my post above. I certainly do not absolve Kettlewell of any responsibility. I'm simply saying that there is more to it than him just deciding he wants to keep Mugabi, for example. It likely involves a three-way discussion between the CEO, Head of Recruitment, and the manager, considering that retaining someone like Mugabi might be a better option than losing him and then struggling to find a suitable replacement. We can assume that Kettlewell will be informed about the current state of the market for the positions he wants to fill by Dawes, as that's his responsibility. So, it's probably a joint decision with many different factors involved.

I wouldn't quite word it like that, but basically, yes. This is a collective endeavour, so it shouldn't all be pinned on the manager. There are a lot of moving parts, and they should be held accountable as well. I agree 100%. I think the time has long since past that actual wholesale changes are needed. Now, I won't pretend to know what the current market is like for players within our budget, but I'd very much like to see the club switch things up and move in a different direction, especially in defence. The idea of us having maybe one or two loanees come in and start the season with Oxborough instead of Kelly in goals as the only real difference from last season doesn't really inspire me with confidence.

My point is that this isn't solely Kettlewell's decision. While he'll have a say, the decision will be a collaborative one, taking into account the opinions of everyone I mentioned. Various factors will be considered, such as the availability of alternatives for that position this summer, the budget, and the costs associated with bringing in someone new compared to keeping someone familiar with the club who the manager believes can improve with different personnel around him. Therefore, calling Kettlewell "a fucking idiot" is unfair, as the final decision won't rest on him alone.

I wouldn't be 100% sure that the contract situation is all down to Kettlewell. It's rare in this day and age that football managers or coaches are the ones who make the sole decision on player retention, contract offers and so on. It's never really been clarified how much final say Kettlewell has on the player retention or recruitment side of things. There's a CEO involved now, and obviously a Head of Recruitment Operations. I doubt both of them will be sitting on their hands while Kettlewell goes around handing out new deals and sanctioning budget spending.

So, basically, if the players who have been offered new deals decide to stay on, our squad before we sign anyone new or potentially sell anyone will be: Aston Oxborough Matty Connelly Stephen O’Donnell Bevis Mugabi Paul McGinn Dan Casey Shane Blaney Callum Slattery Sam Nicholson Andy Halliday Harry Paton Ross Tierney Davor Zdravkovksi Lennon Miller Theo Bair Moses Ebiye

His last contract hadn't even expired, so I'm not sure how many offers he'll have gotten as yet. I would have to believe that if the club had made it clear to him that they didn't fancy him as a number 1, as was evidenced by his not getting a look-in since he joined us two years ago, he'd have surely wanted to explore his options this summer. At the very least he'd likely have gotten a backup deal at a team closer to home down south. This tells me that he's possibly been told that there's a good chance he'll be our number one next season. That's the only reason I can think of why he'd sign a new deal so quickly.

Oxborough signing with us again so soon tells me he's been told he'll have a good chance of being the new number 1. Otherwise, why not wait and see what else is out there? I doubt he'd sign to be our number 2 again.

Can only be Dunne. He fits with the "bring back so and so!" angle, right?

As I've said a few times now, I'm certainly not saying he's not had a poor season or should be absolved of blame. The point I'm making is that he's only as good as the defence in front of him, and vice versa. It's no real surprise that he's had his better seasons for us when we've had a better defence.

Someone just as good, if not better than Kelly on a fraction of his salary.

Again, no one denies that he has underperformed. He has, like most of our players, particularly in defence. However, if he were as bad as many here suggest, he would be finishing up the last days of his contract and heading off to somewhere like the Northern Premier League, just like Aaron Chapman did. There are varying degrees to how well our goalkeepers have performed. Kelly may not be at the level of Ruddie or Randolph, but he's certainly better than Aaron Chapman or Craig Samson. We've had some legit terrible keepers in recent times. Kelly isn't one of them.

However, we've often heard that there are significantly better goalkeepers available for a fraction of Kelly's salary. Why haven't Celtic or Rangers pursued any of these options? Perhaps the reality is that he's not as bad as some people here think. Both sides of the Old Firm may have assessed him and concluded, "With a stronger defence in front of him, he could be a very competent backup keeper."

You understand that a goalkeeper's saves often result from the situations and positions created by the defence, right? Just like how a keeper's command of the box during set pieces can influence the defence's response? It's very difficult to evaluate a goalkeeper or his statistics in isolation without considering the defence in front of him, and the same goes for evaluating many aspects of the defence without considering the goalkeeper's role.

Then why are Celtic and Rangers wasting their time on him? If he's terrible?

Who's saying that he's not been poor? He's been part of a poor defence, but you could honestly have stuck Walter Zenga in goal for us this season and he'd have found it tough. What I'm saying is that he'll likely fare better in a better team, and that you don't get interest from Celtic or Rangers, never mind both of them, if you're "the worst keeper in the league" as some have claimed.