Stuart Kettlewell discussion thread

[Spiderpig]

28 minutes ago, wellfan said:

Then we’ll continue to get rookies and journeymen and suffer the mediocrity/failure that brings unless we show some ambition as I suggested above. However, if the club is content to scrape 10th place most seasons, fail to go on domestic cup runs, and tolerate shocking runs of form with the odd random victory, then the conveyor belt of rookies and journeymen is there for them to continually pick from. That's probably not going to keep the masses on side for long though. 

Realistically then where do you see the clubs ambition to be at each season, league champions, win a cup, top 4 finish, European football every year, given the budget under which we operate?

As for the rookies / journeymen you mention whether that be players or managers, the harsh reality is that's the market we are in, people need to realise that the money we offer for salaries, player budgets, transfer fees etc etc is never going to attract any big name managers or players.

 

[wellfan]

33 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

Realistically then where do you see the clubs ambition to be at each season, league champions, win a cup, top 4 finish, European football every year, given the budget under which we operate?

I've written about this elsewhere. I don't expect much but I expect better than we’ve had recently. At least one cup run every season, plus top 6 and European football maybe twice a decade or so. 

35 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

As for the rookies / journeymen you mention whether that be players or managers, the harsh reality is that's the market we are in, people need to realise that the money we offer for salaries, player budgets, transfer fees etc etc is never going to attract any big name managers or players.

The market we operate in is shit because we keep aiming low with a shit budget that will never increase unless we speculate and aim to achieve some of the basic targets I mentioned above, which do bring financial reward.

I worry that budgeting and aiming for 10th at best every season will only see us go in one direction in the longer term. That's called a managed decline. 

[bobbybingo]

1 hour ago, wellfan said:

Then we’ll continue to get rookies and journeymen and suffer the mediocrity/failure that brings unless we show some ambition as I suggested above. However, if the club is content to scrape 10th place most seasons, fail to go on domestic cup runs, and tolerate shocking runs of form with the odd random victory, then the conveyor belt of rookies and journeymen is there for them to continually pick from. That's probably not going to keep the masses on side for long though. 

We'll see where we finish in May, but we haven't finished 10th or below since 2014/15, so it's not happening most seasons. If someone from the club suggested they'd be content with that, I missed it.

Ruling out rookies and journeymen leaves us with experienced managers who have a proven, ongoing track record of success at our level. I'm struggling to find anyone who fits that bill and would realistically be interested in coming here. It looks like most Premier clubs are struggling on that front too.

[Spiderpig]

11 minutes ago, wellfan said:

 

The market we operate in is shit because we keep aiming low with a shit budget that will never increase unless we speculate

The basic principle of speculation is that you need cash in the 1st place to speculate with, which we don't have so hence the need to live with our means.

So unless a billionaire oil sheik or a group of investors give the club shed loads of cash to spend as we want, with no guarantee of a return it won't happen, the odd bucket collection before a game won't cut it.

So living within our means in the "shit market " as you put it is where we are, and we've done OK over the last 38 seasons.

[wellfan]

50 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

The basic principle of speculation is that you need cash in the 1st place to speculate with, which we don't have so hence the need to live with our means.

So unless a billionaire oil sheik or a group of investors give the club shed loads of cash to spend as we want, with no guarantee of a return it won't happen, the odd bucket collection before a game won't cut it.

So living within our means in the "shit market " as you put it is where we are, and we've done OK over the last 38 seasons.

You outline why we require investment, hence my comment regarding speculation. 

[wellfan]

42 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

The club may budget for tenth but I'm not sure that's what they aim for. We had top six and European football two years ago and we were 7th last season and 5th the season before. 

We need investment, as everyone knows. 

Of course, we aim higher, but the budget tends to dictate the final result, barring the exceptions of the past you mentioned. 

And yes, we do need investment so that our aims can become a consistent reality instead of an occasional exception. 

[texanwellfan]

44 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

In my view Hammell was the wrong person at the wrong time more than Kettlewell. SK kept us up last season and for that he deserves credit in my view. It's also not easy to say what other people who applied for the role did or didn't have as attributes compared to SK and why the club felt that SK was the better option. It's not something fans will be told. 

SK also got I think it was two games as caretaker manager and from recollection we won them both - so that had to go in his favour surely. 

Also just got us our first win at Ibrox in top flight league in 27 years so he has something about him. I think he will turn out to be a good manager for us. The more experience he gets, I’m sure the better he will become.  For sure he makes errors, probably overthinks some games but I think his methods, philosophy and personality will stand him (and MFC) in good stead. 

[grizzlyg]

After the Warnock shambles at Aberdeen remember that we interviewed Ian Holloway.  Imagine the media circus if he had got the job.   Kettlewell for me was the correct appointment and I think he is improving in small steps.  Keep us safe and a major rebuild in the summer 

[joewarkfanclub]

10 hours ago, wellfan said:

He was promoted from within as he currently held a lesser post at the club.

I still wouldn't have been pleased with his appointment if hadn't held the lead development coach position, as his managerial record at Ross County wasn't great. 

Maybe he wasn't the cheap option, and maybe he was, but he was likely the easy option given he was deemed a promotable current employee. It's generally cheaper/easier to recruit from within than undertake an external recruitment exercise. 

A club generally has to speculate to accumulate, yet it appears to me that the club is scrimping and expecting to accumulate. The scrimping approach may come good next season, but I just don't see anything other than more of the same for as long as we maintain the current regime. 

The problem with speculate to accumulate is that it doesnt come risk free.

Look at us under Dempster/McCall. We were spending significantly more then than we are now and we did get higher league positions, the odd cup run and European football. It was good fun, but we made significant losses every season that could not be sustained.

Look at Dundee United, Hibs and Aberdeen. They have all been spending significant sums of cash in order to "speculate to accumulate" and none of them have any better recent records than ourselves.

I think fiscal prudence in our current fan owned set up is not only wise but necessary to ensure our continued existence.

The last couple of seasons havent been easy, but it looks like we will retian our top flight status this season and be in a better position to build and move forward next season.

Given the changes that are coming down the line at executive level, keeping faith in the manager that has been through the process and allowing him to build in what he has done so far seems sensible to me.

[smiddy]

23 hours ago, AllyMax said:

Other people suggested it earlier in this thread, so you never know. Along with others such as Duncan Ferguson (and the usual 'he'd sort them oot' crap you get about people like him and Lennon)

naw mate youv picked me up wrong, a canny stick the wee contankarous gob shite, ever since he signed his own bro, and other things

[AllyMax]

1 hour ago, smiddy said:

naw mate youv picked me up wrong, a canny stick the wee contankarous gob shite, ever since he signed his own bro, and other things

Good man 🙂 I'm 100% with you on that 🙂 

I'm sure it was mentioned that we 'lacked the ambition' to go for him. 

[AllyMax]

1 hour ago, joewarkfanclub said:

The problem with speculate to accumulate is that it doesnt come risk free.

Look at us under Dempster/McCall. We were spending significantly more then than we are now and we did get higher league positions, the odd cup run and European football. It was good fun, but we made significant losses every season that could not be sustained.

Look at Dundee United, Hibs and Aberdeen. They have all been spending significant sums of cash in order to "speculate to accumulate" and none of them have any better recent records than ourselves.

I think fiscal prudence in our current fan owned set up is not only wise but necessary to ensure our continued existence.

The last couple of seasons havent been easy, but it looks like we will retian our top flight status this season and be in a better position to build and move forward next season.

Given the changes that are coming down the line at executive level, keeping faith in the manager that has been through the process and allowing him to build in what he has done so far seems sensible to me.

Spot on mate.

A lot of teams have 'shown ambition' and 'speculated'. e.g. Gretna, Livingston, Airdrie, Dundee, Hearts (they might be 3rd now but there's an administration from the 'speculation' years to consider), us under Boyle and Nevin. There must be more that I'l missing, but I don't recall a recent story of a team in Scotland ploughing loads of money into a team, being mega succesful and becoming financially viable from their investment. There is no money to be made in Scottish football for anyone outside the uglies (and look at the financial state one of them is in). Even in the EPL, the sucessful teams are making massive losses and have 'donors' throwing hundreds of millions in which they'll never see again.

The path we're on is the only viable one and to my mind, thats why any 'investment' needs a hell of a lot of scrutiny before moving forward. 

[texanwellfan]

I was already over here before administration times so not 100% sure exactly what happened but seems like we spent a lot of money buying players and giving them high wages in anticipation of them performing. I’m not so much in favour of repeating that but more in the way of having funds to help us thru years where we incur losses and also to enable us to offer competitive salaries to players we want to Keep. Having said that i mean with respect to teams in Scotland other than old firm  

 

[wellfan]

As I’ve said many times on here in defence of my argument for having ambition and in response to those of cry wolf about what has happened to Dundee United, Gretna, etc., it doesn't have to be a famine-to-feast scenario for us. 

There's fiscal prudence and there's throwing millions, but there's also an in-between, and it’s that middle ground I would like to see implemented once the Club and Society have sorted out the governance and financial side of things. 

It's tiresome reading responses from folks who consistently shout ‘But look at club x, y, z’ when someone dares to suggest the Club has a little ambition.

I'm accused of being negative about Kettlewell, which is fine, but the negativity towards those who suggest seeking to achieve something better is equally loud. Have some ambition! 

[wellfan]

27 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

I personally don't understand why Motherwell appointing Kettlewell suggests a lack of ambition.

That's completely fine to have that view, but I think it shows the opposite for the reasons I've outlined. We took the cheap and/or easy option. 

29 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

There are zero guarantees that if Motherwell appointed a bigger name we would automatically do better.

There are also zero guarantees that promoting from within would lead to us doing better, but we still went for that option.

I've avoided suggesting or discounting any names on this topic, but my view is that being more ambitious doesn't have to mean seeking a ‘bigger name’, such as Goodwin or Lennon, but that we could've looked beyond our own ranks for someone with more first-team managerial experience, demonstrable tactical nous, and some relative success.

For example, a lower league experienced manager who's shown they're capable of stepping up. Instead, we’ve got someone learning on the job, albeit he kept us up last season, but the learning curve has proven costly this season in terms of the lack of cup progression and league position.

He has a massive (third) transfer window ahead of him, otherwise, next season will likely be more of the same. 

[witchfindergeneral]

5 minutes ago, wellfan said:

For example, a lower league experienced manager who's shown they're capable of stepping up.

Would love to hear your nominations for this one. 

Dick Campbell? Jim Goodwin? James McPake? Ian Murray? Paul Hartley? Ian McCall? Airdrie player/manager Rhys McCabe?

 

Not exactly inspiring names

[wellfan]

11 minutes ago, witchfindergeneral said:

Would love to hear your nominations for this one. 

Dick Campbell? Jim Goodwin? James McPake? Ian Murray? Paul Hartley? Ian McCall? Airdrie player/manager Rhys McCabe?

Not exactly inspiring names

See my above comments. Furthermore, 13 months ago, you could've added Stuart Kettlewell to that list of uninspiring names.

[bobbybingo]

18 minutes ago, wellfan said:

See my above comments. 

That it's not your job?

[dennyc]

3 hours ago, wellfan said:

As I’ve said many times on here in defence of my argument for having ambition and in response to those of cry wolf about what has happened to Dundee United, Gretna, etc., it doesn't have to be a famine-to-feast scenario for us. 

There's fiscal prudence and there's throwing millions, but there's also an in-between, and it’s that middle ground I would like to see implemented once the Club and Society have sorted out the governance and financial side of things. 

It's tiresome reading responses from folks who consistently shout ‘But look at club x, y, z’ when someone dares to suggest the Club has a little ambition.

I'm accused of being negative about Kettlewell, which is fine, but the negativity towards those who suggest seeking to achieve something better is equally loud. Have some ambition! 

I know we have had our differences on a few things but I think this is so spot on. For a good while my concern has been that our long term strategy is largely based on substantial income from player sales. That is just not sustainable and so full of risk....Admittedly Covid interrupting youth development did not help. We are now seeing exactly what happens when lack of a major sale coincides with poor on field performance. The current "get out of jail" card is clearly Lennon Miller who, but for injury, would likely have been sold by now. How that would have affected our fight for league survival nobody knows. And let's not forget that we have actually benefited from players sales in this time, KVV as an example. It is just not enough.

in my opinion the Club's entire operating strategy needs reviewed and one positive of the forthcoming Board changes is that such a complete Club review should happen. Time for new blood and fresh ideas. My sense is that our departing Board members have simply run out of ideas. Hopefully whoever constitutes the new Board can come up with a solution that enables us to at least break even each season. 

Also, and this understandably will not go down too well with many, there has been too much reliance on Well Society funds. What was intended as a back up facility appears to me to have become the go to option when it comes to "projects" the Club and others wish to undertake but cannot afford. A Piggy Bank to be raided.  Couple that approach with the dilution of Society monies to appease Les Hutchison and it explains why Society monies are over £1m down on where they could have been. Thankfully, from Jay's comments, that is a situation that should not continue. Hopefully all Society Board Members, new and old,  will now adopt the same approach.

I hope the WS continues to grow and can become the asset that was originally proposed. But if the Club is to thrive at our current level then I believe that outside investment is required to fund the year on year football operations. As discussed previously, that Investment must come with legally binding guarantees that protect the Club, and from investors that recognise the true purpose of the WS and are prepared to work side by side on that basis. Not an easy find.

Not related to Motherwell. so apologies if not thought relevant to MFC. . I was talking to a Hibs fan yesterday who informed me that their American investor (Foley) is actually introducing £6m per year for each of the next 5 years. I had not appreciated that the deal involved such an annual input. Also, a colleague of Foley is in discussion regards the input of a "one off" £10m. Only time will tell, but the terms they have negotiated don't appear to threaten the assets the Club owns or intrude massively in day to day operations. Fans will talk about "feeder" clubs  but there is no evidence as yet to support that, and even if it is the case, where is the harm in players switching Clubs given that rules exist re value for money. As we have seen, non affiliated loan deals can cause bigger issues.

 

 

[Spiderpig]

50 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

There were only a few people interviewed for the vacant position if I'm right.

Holloway I believe and possibly Valakari. Its not as if Kettlewell was competing with a host of big names and got the job ahead of them. Surely it also has to come down to who actually applies for the vacancy. 

Valakari always gets mentioned and allegedly interviewed for every managers job we have irrespective of whether he wants the job or not.

[Kmcalpin]

50 minutes ago, dennyc said:

I was talking to a Hibs fan yesterday who informed me that their American investor (Foley) is actually introducing £6m per year for each of the next 5 years. I had not appreciated that the deal involved such an annual input. Also, a colleague of Foley is in discussion regards the input of a "one off" £10m. Only time will tell, but the terms they have negotiated don't appear to threaten the assets the Club owns or intrude massively in day to day operations. Fans will talk about "feeder" clubs  but there is no evidence as yet to support that, and even if it is the case, where is the harm in players switching Clubs given that rules exist re value for money. As we have seen, non affiliated loan deals can cause bigger issues.

If something sounds too good to be true it probably is. I must admit to being very suspicious about Hibs' deal. I just don't believe that the philanthropists have appeared and are giving Hibs money with no strings attached. Dundee United and their philanthropists come to mind.

[dennyc]

46 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

If something sounds too good to be true it probably is. I must admit to being very suspicious about Hibs' deal. I just don't believe that the philanthropists have appeared and are giving Hibs money with no strings attached. Dundee United and their philanthropists come to mind.

I get your suspicion. Understandable. The challenge is sorting out the good from bad. And care needs to be exercised.  The protections Hibs appear to have inbuilt suggests to me to that this is not the raid that some are fearing. Time will tell of course, but there is no evidence of ill intent so far. The opposite in fact. And speculation about asset stripping, feeder club is exactly that. Speculation based on a distrust of the deal or that the share purchase reduces fan ownership percentage. But I take your point.

[Spiderpig]

1 hour ago, dennyc said:

I know we have had our differences on a few things but I think this is so spot on. For a good while my concern has been that our long term strategy is largely based on substantial income from player sales. That is just not sustainable and so full of risk....Admittedly Covid interrupting youth development did not help. We are now seeing exactly what happens when lack of a major sale coincides with poor on field performance. The current "get out of jail" card is clearly Lennon Miller who, but for injury, would likely have been sold by now. How that would have affected our fight for league survival nobody knows. And let's not forget that we have actually benefited from players sales in this time, KVV as an example. It is just not enough.

in my opinion the Club's entire operating strategy needs reviewed and one positive of the forthcoming Board changes is that such a complete Club review should happen. Time for new blood and fresh ideas. My sense is that our departing Board members have simply run out of ideas. Hopefully whoever constitutes the new Board can come up with a solution that enables us to at least break even each season. 

Also, and this understandably will not go down too well with many, there has been too much reliance on Well Society funds. What was intended as a back up facility appears to me to have become the go to option when it comes to "projects" the Club and others wish to undertake but cannot afford. A Piggy Bank to be raided.  Couple that approach with the dilution of Society monies to appease Les Hutchison and it explains why Society monies are over £1m down on where they could have been. Thankfully, from Jay's comments, that is a situation that should not continue. Hopefully all Society Board Members, new and old,  will now adopt the same approach.

I hope the WS continues to grow and can become the asset that was originally proposed. But if the Club is to thrive at our current level then I believe that outside investment is required to fund the year on year football operations. As discussed previously, that Investment must come with legally binding guarantees that protect the Club, and from investors that recognise the true purpose of the WS and are prepared to work side by side on that basis. Not an easy find.

Not related to Motherwell. so apologies if not thought relevant to MFC. . I was talking to a Hibs fan yesterday who informed me that their American investor (Foley) is actually introducing £6m per year for each of the next 5 years. I had not appreciated that the deal involved such an annual input. Also, a colleague of Foley is in discussion regards the input of a "one off" £10m. Only time will tell, but the terms they have negotiated don't appear to threaten the assets the Club owns or intrude massively in day to day operations. Fans will talk about "feeder" clubs  but there is no evidence as yet to support that, and even if it is the case, where is the harm in players switching Clubs given that rules exist re value for money. As we have seen, non affiliated loan deals can cause bigger issues.

 

 

Nobody invests £30 million over 5 years or a one off £10 million without the guarantee of a significant return, I suspect it will be when the investors get bored or want their cash back that the true nature of these deals will become evident.

[dennyc]

16 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

Nobody invests £30 million over 5 years or a one off £10 million without the guarantee of a significant return, I suspect it will be when the investors get bored or want their cash back that the true nature of these deals will become evident.

You could well be correct. But as I said, based on caution and suspicion. Nothing wrong with that. But it is not based on any evidence we have seen so far. Anyway, that's Hibs problem so we can wait and see. I imagine similar discussions will take place if we secure any sort of offer.

[wellfan]

4 hours ago, wellgirl said:

There were only a few people interviewed for the vacant position if I'm right.

Holloway I believe and possibly Valakari. Its not as if Kettlewell was competing with a host of big names and got the job ahead of them. Surely it also has to come down to who actually applies for the vacancy. 

Fair point. February is a strange time to be looking for a new manager. I guess we’ll never know if there were more than 3 candidates unless someone here knows?!