David

You're clearly in the latter category.

I don't think I'd be looking at isolated transfer fees without looking at the underlying data sets. Kieran Bowie wasn’t bought purely because of goals scored over a few seasons. Clubs don’t price attacking players on raw goal output alone, otherwise half the market would make zero sense. They look at things like age curve, contract position, physical profile, league-adjusted output, projected development trajectory, injury history, resale potential and expected value over the life of the contract. That’s why younger players consistently command premiums over better current players. If you look across Europe over the last 5 years or so, players aged between 18-22 routinely transfer for significantly more than players 25+ with better immediate output. That isn’t my opinion, that’s just how recruitment models work nowadays. Same with the Raskin comparison. He plays for Rangers, is younger, has European exposure almost every season, and is sitting in a completely different transfer ecosystem. The Old Firm market is not the Motherwell market. I know we don't like that, but it's the truth. If we strip emotion out of it and look at Just objectively, here’s the career profile a buying club is probably looking at: 26 years old Spent years moving between Danish first and second division football Spell in Austrian second tier One very strong season in Scotland 3 World Cup goals, which absolutely helps visibility Now compare that to what I believe recruitment departments call “transferable asset value”. At 26, a club buying Elijah probably gets 3–4 peak years. At 18 like Lennon Miller, a club potentially gets 10+ years plus a second sale. That future value gets priced in. I think where I disagree is this idea that “performance merits a £Xm valuation”. Football doesn’t work like that. If it did, loads of players would be worth far more than they eventually end up moving for. Recruitment departments are increasingly data-led these days. They model future value, they don't tend to reward past performance all that much. Personally, I think Just has been phenomenal for us. But if I was sitting in a recruitment department trying to build a valuation model, I’m not getting anywhere near £10m (or even £6 million) based on one excellent Scottish Premiership season and three World Cup goals in a group-stage exit. And that’s not talking him down. That’s just how the market tends to price these things in my opinion.

It was said literally at the top of this page.

It's one of those shirts that will likely look pretty good as part of a whole kit, worn by footballers on a football pitch, but maybe not so much worn by the average Scottish guy with jeans and a pair of trainers. I'll likely wait and see what the training collection looks like this year.

I’m not trying to undersell him. I rate him highly and I think he’s been outstanding for us. But I think there are two different arguments being mixed together here. One is: how good is Elijah Just? The other is: what would a buying club realistically pay Motherwell for him? Those are not the same thing in my view. On the Ronaldo comparison, I don’t think it works at all. Ronaldo’s Juventus fee came after he had become one of the greatest players of all time, won multiple Champions Leagues, won Ballon d’Ors, and had enormous commercial value. That wasn’t a “finished article” premium in the normal sense. It was an elite global asset changing hands. In normal football markets, clubs often pay more for younger players because they are buying future upside. That’s why Lennon Miller’s fee makes sense. Udinese were not paying £4.5m because he was a better player than Just today. They were paying for an 18-year-old Scotland international with resale potential. If Miller develops properly, he could become a £15m–£25m player. That upside is priced into the fee. With Just, it’s different. He’s 26. He’s much closer to the finished player. That makes him more reliable, but it also reduces the resale premium in my opinion. His career history matters too. Before Motherwell, he had played in Denmark across the first and second tiers, then in the Austrian second tier. That doesn’t mean he isn’t a very good player, but it is part of the evidence a buying club will use. Clubs won’t ignore seven or eight years of career data because of one excellent season and a few World Cup games. That's just a fact. I'm not saying that the World Cup doesn't raise his profile though, it absolutely does. Three goals at a World Cup is a brilliant achievement, especially for a Motherwell player. Nobody should dismiss that. But context matters there as well. Two came against Iran. The other was a consolation in a 5–1 defeat to Belgium, and New Zealand still went out bottom of the group. That is still impressive, but it is not the same as dominating a knockout tie against France, Brazil or Argentina. The Engels and Fernandez comparisons are also a bit of a stretch. Celtic and Rangers sell from a completely different position. They have bigger wages, European exposure, stronger bargaining power, longer control in many cases, and clubs in England are more willing to pay a premium for players coming out of them. Motherwell do not get Celtic or Rangers prices just because the player may be comparable on the pitch. I wish it wasn't the case, but it is. I also agree that we should talk our players up. But talking them up doesn’t mean inventing a market that doesn’t exist. I'm trying to look at this from the position of a club who can afford someone like Just, and how they'll see it. For me, £4m for Just would not be insulting. It would be a very strong fee for a 26 year old attacking player from a non-Old Firm Scottish club. If we could get £3.5-£4m with serious add-ons and a sell-on clause, that would be very good business. Could a Celtic buy him for £4.5m and later sell him for more? Possibly. But that’s exactly the point. Celtic would be able to do that because they can offer Champions League exposure, a bigger platform and a stronger selling market. Motherwell selling directly from Fir Park are operating in a different market. So I’m not saying Just isn’t a class act. He is. I’m saying “class act” and “£10m player from Motherwell” are two very different things.

I understand the hype coming off last season and all that, but I think we need to row it back a little as far as expectations go. I think people are putting far too much weight on a couple of World Cup performances and ignoring the bigger picture. Just is 26 years old and, prior to arriving here, his career trajectory was hardly that of a player clubs were lining up to spend huge money on. He spent years in Denmark moving between the first and second tiers, then had a spell in the Austrian second division, before ending up at what is seen as a mid-table Scottish Premiership club. Aye, he had a very good World Cup, but let’s keep perspective. He scored twice against Iran, then got a consolation goal against Belgium in a heavy defeat, and New Zealand still finished bottom of the group and went home early. That tournament absolutely raises his profile, but clubs don’t suddenly ignore 7 or 8 years of previous evidence because of three good games. The Lennon Miller comparison absolutely does not work for me either. Udinese paid for an 18-year-old with massive upside and potential resale value. Just is much closer to the finished article, which usually means lower upside and lower transfer fee, even if he’s arguably the better player today. If he was 20 and had just put in those performances, we’d be having a completely different conversation. But he isn't, so we're not.

I'm not so sure it's down to him being unsettled, and more likely to be the one issue that saw him arrive at Fir Park in the first place. A lack of consistency. There's a lot of really good players out there, but the great players who make it at the top level tend to be more consistent than most. He was initially brought through the Leicester City academy, so he obviously turned some heads previously. But he was let go for a reason, and that reason is likely a lack of consistency. The talent is there, there's no doubt about that.

Transfer fees aren’t really based on how highly supporters rate a player. They’re based on what the market is willing to pay, and historically clubs in Scotland outside Celtic and Rangers rarely command £6m fees unless you’re talking truly exceptional circumstances. Like a Lennon Miller. The World Cup definitely helps exposure, no doubt about it, but one tournament doesn’t automatically double a player’s value overnight. I think there’s a difference between saying he’s played at a £6m level and saying a club will actually pay £6m. Those aren’t always the same thing.

I think £4 mill is likely the ceiling, we'd do well to get that kind of money. Transfer fees aren’t just about how good someone looks in a tournament. They’re about age, contract length, league, buying market, resale value and proven level. The Chris Wood comparison doesn’t really apply either. Wood moved for those fees because he was a proven Premier League centre-forward, with a rare physical profile and years of goals behind him. Plus, that market is completely different from a wide player coming out of Motherwell, no matter how good Elijah has looked. I would say that the World Cup absolutely raises his value. No doubt about that. That provides visibility, creates interest and maybe turns a £2m player into a £3m–£4m player if there’s a bit of competition and a bidding war or something. But £3m–£4m for a 26 year old attacking player from a non-Old Firm Scottish club would already be a very good fee. If he was 20 or 21, with the same performances and bigger resale upside, then I’d agree the number should be a bit higher. For me, the club should be aiming for a decent guaranteed fee, good add-ons, and a sell-on clause. That’s where we can protect ourselves if he goes on and proves he’s worth far more.

I think that’s fair to an extent, but I’d say that’s slightly separate from the point I’m making. I completely agree that uprooting at 16 and moving hundreds of miles away, or even abroad, is a huge decision and not every young player will be comfortable doing that. But we’re still talking about young lads making career decisions in an industry where the odds of making it long term are incredibly small, and where one injury can change everything very quickly. Some will value first team football above everything else. Some will value financial security. Some will value staying close to family. Some will back themselves enough to take a bigger gamble elsewhere. I just think supporters are a bit too quick to look at it entirely through a footballing lens and say “he should have stayed here, played 50 games and got a better move later”. The problem is football careers don’t follow neat scripts like that. Plenty of boys stay, never kick on, lose form, get injured or disappear down the leagues. It’s easy to say what the right choice was after the fact. Much harder when you’re 16 and trying to make a decision that could shape the rest of your life.

I think a lot of supporters massively overestimate how predictable football development actually is. I see it said that Rice should have stayed because he’d have had 50 games with us and earned a bigger move later. Maybe. But statistically, most academy players never make it that far. Across professional football, the majority of academy players are out of the game entirely by 21. Even at clubs like ours, dozens sign professional deals over a decade and only a small percentage become established first team players. Then add injury risk. One bad injury at 18 and suddenly that “big move later” never comes. It’s easy to point at Lennon Miller now, but Lennon is clearly an exceptional talent. Using the most successful academy player we’ve had in years as the benchmark for every youngster is hindsight. At 16 or 17, if someone offers you serious money, elite facilities and a different pathway, I don’t think taking that deal is mental at all. Supporters always talk about what players might earn in the future. Players have to think about what happens if that future never arrives.

That's an unfair comparison in my view. Lennon is a special talent. The previous poster mentioned Hastie, and I think we can all agree that had he not accepted that Rangers deal he'd likely have pissed about with us for a season or two, not getting a steady run, then quietly let go to drift down the leagues. Only difference is that when that happened he had a decent wedge in the bank. I grudge no young player the chance to make good money. We can all bang on about how it would serve them better by staying at Fir Park and eventually winning the big move. But what if the big move never comes? What if they end up injured and are never the same? The fans aren't going to pay the mortgage or give them that financial cushion if they're playing part-time football. Bailey took the right course of action for himself at the time, and that's fine.

They can seek all they like. Doesn't mean they're going to find it.

The proof will be in the pudding when they get to the training ground. That's where a manager is judged. Players can tell from how he runs his training sessions, how hard he works them, what he asks of them, and his tactical nouse how effective a manager he is. Aura and presence are definitely a thing, but they only get you so far. Yogi Hughes has aura and presence, but he would very likely immediately lose this squad of players after a few training sessions.

The more I hear about the guy, the more I'm strangely intrigued to see him get the job and basically burn Scottish football to the ground.

I was more thinking about the growing fanbase for the English Premiership.

When we live in the UK, and Scotland in particular, and insist on playing football through the winter, a lot of people are always going to prefer sitting in their warm house with a beer watching the game.

I've gone ahead and moved some of the World Cup chat to the World Cup thread in General Football so the Former Players thread can get back on track. A few posts around current players and players leaving us in this window have been shifted to the 2025/26 ins and outs thread.

Because Clarke has a hard-on for anyone who plays south of the border? He'd probably take the guy who cuts the grass at the Etihad before he'd take someone like Miller to the tournament.

I don't know if I'd classify them as "much bigger", but I'm not sure we can say that we're bigger than Celtic, Rangers, Hearts, Hibs, Dundee United & Aberdeen. On crowd and budget, that collection right there should be the default top six. Granted, we rarely see a season where all six of them are on form and performing to their potential, which usually means one or two slip out of the top six, and that's where ourselves, St Mirren, Killie, Dundee etc can take advantage.

Progression for me doesn't mean attaining more success, it's more about continuing with what we've been doing. I'm thinking more along the lines of establishing ourselves as a mainstay in the top six, for example. We've finished in the top six something like three times in the past ten years, so establishing a run of finishing in the top six would be progress in my opinion. Continuing to play an attractive, exciting brand of football that attracts fans to the ground is also important. That's mainly what I mean when I say it would have been interesting to see how JBA would have fared in his second season.

I guess a question I have is, *whisper it*, would Jens have managed to continue the success with the same approach in his second season? Your Slot comment is interesting, because we saw the difference between his two seasons in charge. Sadly, we'll never know. We can only be thankful for the incredible season we had.

I agree with you. If he were German or Danish and could squeeze into a slim-fit Uniqlo long-sleeve minimalist-style t-shirt, opinion on him would likely be very different. There are a few things that I admire about McGlynn's style, including his brave decision to reject the usual approach to Scottish Championship-level football (direct, physical, second-ball contests) in favour of a more attractive, proactive approach. I have probably watched more of Falkirk in the second half of this season than any club outside of our own, and it's mental how calm they seem to play. They often looked like a side who just know the goal would eventually come through repetition and patience rather than chaos and panic. Some would say that has proven to be the way to actually undo us this season. McGlynn seems to be more interested in Intelligent footballers. Falkirk this past season had technically sound midfielders, full-backs comfortable in possession, and mobile, versatile attackers. He is one of the rare few generally less interested in the "run your socks off, earn the right to play football" approach that many Scottish managers (and some not Scottish managers, it must be said) tend to employ. That said, his approach is different from the system we have in place at the moment, even if I do rate McGlynn highly. In my view, he favours a system where the players look comfortable, the system serves the players, and they play with confidence, rhythm and repetition. Us under Jens seemed more along the lines of constant movement, pressing triggers, rotations and tactical demands. Everything feels designed to overwhelm opponents physically and mentally, where the players serve the system instead. What the real question is, is what we're doing actually sustainable? McGlynn has shown his system is sustainable over League One (also going undefeated I think?), Championship, promotion pressures, initial relegation pressure in being one of the favourites to go back down, and also squad turnover. What he's done with Falkirk is remarkable. I know the trendy option is to look for coaches who look the part and have umlauts in their name, but I do think we could honestly do much worse than John McGlynn. But the fact he's Scottish and looks like the guy your auld da talks to down the bookies definitely works against him, I think.

I look forward to seeing a 38 year old Kenny McLean and Grant Hanley included, despite not even playing club football, with Clarke commenting how impressive they've looked during kickabouts with their kids in the garden.

It'll be interesting to see how Olly Whyte factors in this coming season. With that extension signed and his successful loan period last season, I'd hope to see him get some minutes in our midfield this season. I admit to not seeing much of him, but from what I've heard, he has a lot of qualities that could see him eventually fit into the midfield and how we play. I guess it'll depend on whether he's quite ready to show the consistency and decision-making under pressure that anyone playing in our midfield requires. I'm not sure another loan spell is needed, as there's few teams in the lower leagues that play how we do, so it wouldn't be worth it from that viewpoint. And he's already shown that he's physically capable of competing in senior football. I'd hope he sees time on our bench and gets some game time.