2023/24 ins & outs discussion

[MJC]

12 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

That's Oli Shaw returned to Barnsley. 

Another failure from Kettlewell and Daws. And another January window trying to rectify atrocious recruitment from the previous summer. We can’t keep going through this cycle every single year.

[GazzyB]

38 minutes ago, MJC said:

Another failure from Kettlewell and Daws. And another January window trying to rectify atrocious recruitment from the previous summer. We can’t keep going through this cycle every single year.

Completely agree, the last window was a failure and this one is underwhelming so far.

 

Scott would be a good addition as someone who can carry the ball akin to how Watt used to and get us up the park.

[Wellfan91]

38 minutes ago, MJC said:

Another failure from Kettlewell and Daws. And another January window trying to rectify atrocious recruitment from the previous summer. We can’t keep going through this cycle every single year.

Once Daws gets binned that will be rectified hopefully - all for giving Kettlewell another year (much to varied opinion of course) but he should get the chance to bring his own man in the summer! Heard Daws is on too much money to release and Alexander has obviously realised he's hopeless otherwise he would have followed him to MK Dons or Bradford.

[fizoxy]

15 minutes ago, Wellfan91 said:

Once Daws gets binned that will be rectified hopefully - all for giving Kettlewell another year (much to varied opinion of course) but he should get the chance to bring his own man in the summer! Heard Daws is on too much money to release and Alexander has obviously realised he's hopeless otherwise he would have followed him to MK Dons or Bradford.

Is the point of a head of recruitment not to offer continuity in that area regardless of who the manager is? As such, do we really want the manager being the one responsible for hiring the HoR?

[Wellfan91]

19 minutes ago, fizoxy said:

Is the point of a head of recruitment not to offer continuity in that area regardless of who the manager is? As such, do we really want the manager being the one responsible for hiring the HoR?

We are getting continuity from Daws - a continuity of 💩

Clean slate required in the summer given he's out of contract, SK to stay on for a year and bring in who he wants (with the oversight of the board) as HOR

[santheman]

FWIW someone who is usually spot on with his info told me that we were never in for Main or Scott and it was just paper talk.

[bobbybingo]

If/when Daws gets binned, I'd be interested to know how that would enable Kettlewell or A.N. Other to bring in the players they want.

[fizoxy]

53 minutes ago, Wellfan91 said:

We are getting continuity from Daws - a continuity of 💩

Clean slate required in the summer given he's out of contract, SK to stay on for a year and bring in who he wants (with the oversight of the board) as HOR

Why would the manager appoint the head of recruitment? That should be the board/ceo's job with some input from the manager at best.

[Wellfan91]

33 minutes ago, fizoxy said:

Why would the manager appoint the head of recruitment? That should be the board/ceo's job with some input from the manager at best.

That's what I meant when I said oversight from the board - I'd expect them to draw up a list and then SK and the board pick who is best.

[texanwellfan]

3 minutes ago, Wellfan91 said:

That's what I meant when I said oversight from the board - I'd expect them to draw up a list and then SK and the board pick who is best.

Or they pick half a dozen or so experts from in here to do it for free and save a bundle. At least that way we can be sure of only getting top class players. 
 

surely no emoji required to accompany my statement? 😀

[santheman]

1 minute ago, texanwellfan said:

Or they pick half a dozen or so experts from in here to do it for free and save a bundle. At least that way we can be sure of only getting top class players. 
 

surely no emoji required to accompany my statement? 😀

I can think of 3 right away.

[Great Balls of Shire]

23 minutes ago, texanwellfan said:

Or they pick half a dozen or so experts from in here to do it for free and save a bundle. At least that way we can be sure of only getting top class players. 
 

surely no emoji required to accompany my statement? 😀

Totally, they're all for sacking a guy they couldn't pick out in a line up, no idea of the constraints or job requirements or kettleWells opinion of him, which is surely the most important 

[AllyMax]

2 hours ago, GazzyB said:

Completely agree, the last window was a failure and this one is underwhelming so far.

 

Scott would be a good addition as someone who can carry the ball akin to how Watt used to and get us up the park.

Taking Scott's name (as someone we already know) out of the equation, if it had been announced that the club was signing a player who had netted 12 goals since the start of the 2019 season, do you think the forum would have got excited and shouted 'Brilliant News, well done Kettlewell and Daws !'

[David]

3 hours ago, MJC said:

Another failure from Kettlewell and Daws.

Kettlewell and Daws weren't the only ones who were behind the idea of us signing Shaw. Go back and read the responses when he signed. He was considered a "decent signing" who would kick on if given playing time.

Funnily enough, there's no sign of you claiming he would be a disaster and that Kettlewell and Daws had got it wrong. You only jumped in and made that claim with 20/20 hindsight.

[GazzyB]

17 minutes ago, AllyMax said:

Taking Scott's name (as someone we already know) out of the equation, if it had been announced that the club was signing a player who had netted 12 goals since the start of the 2019 season, do you think the forum would have got excited and shouted 'Brilliant News, well done Kettlewell and Daws !'

4 more than what Bair had to be fair!

 

I do get your point, but given he's one of our own and we've all seen him and know he was a decent player for this level I think most would have been okay with Scott. More forgiving than they will be when the next Conor Wilkinson is signed before the end of the window.

[MJC]

4 minutes ago, David said:

Kettlewell and Daws weren't the only ones who were behind the idea of us signing Shaw. Go back and read the responses when he signed. He was considered a "decent signing" who would kick on if given playing time.

Funnily enough, there's no sign of you claiming he would be a disaster and that Kettlewell and Daws had got it wrong. You only jumped in and made that claim with 20/20 hindsight.

That’s true and yes it is much easier to say he’s been a failure after six months of him being here rather than when he signed. Every signing we make is a gamble, I know that and I accept it.

But regardless of what I or anyone else thought before he had kicked a ball for us the fact in the matter is that this is another signing made during the summer that didn’t work out. The manager and the head of scouting are the ones paid to take responsibility for signings and are in a better position than anyone in the support or this forum to judge a player, or so you would hope anyway.

[AllyMax]

17 minutes ago, GazzyB said:

4 more than what Bair had to be fair!

 

I do get your point, but given he's one of our own and we've all seen him and know he was a decent player for this level I think most would have been okay with Scott. More forgiving than they will be when the next Conor Wilkinson is signed before the end of the window.

And there is the heart of the problem 🙂 Since 2019, Wilkinson's scoring record is miles better than Scott's. 

Strikers are always a gamble. Fletcher/Moult is a great example and there are dozens of others. Sometimes strikers wouk out in certain teams and others just don't and a lot of the time, track record doesn't reflect outcome. You can go back decades with this. Willie Pettigrew had been on the books with Alloa and Hibs I think, couldn't get a look in and then became a goal machine for us. Another mid 70's example, Mike Larnach set the heather on fire for Clydebank, went down south and faild, came back to us and failed again, went back to clydebank and started battering them in for fun again. (sorry, im an old c**t so my recollection of 70's transfers is immense 🙂 ).Tommy McLean signed Ally Graham from Ayr when he was the top goalscorer in the 2nd tier, but did nowt for us and got moved on.

Not having a go at you here mate, but when I see posters constantly carp about our clubs faiures in the signing department, it pisses me off, for a multitude of reasons. Most of them probably couldn't organise a Subbuteo team and have no idea about contracts, budgets etc and can't see the bigger picture. You canny just go on 'playmaker' and type in 'top league, proven 25 goal a season striker at under £2K per week, multiple assists welcome'. 

🙂

[bobbybingo]

Fingers crossed Kettlewell can find some strikers who have good goal scoring records, are surplus to requirements at their current club (or even better, don't have a club), and are attracting zero interest from anyone with more money than us to spend - which seems to be any club at or above our level. 

[GazzyB]

20 minutes ago, AllyMax said:

And there is the heart of the problem 🙂 Since 2019, Wilkinson's scoring record is miles better than Scott's. 

Strikers are always a gamble. Fletcher/Moult is a great example and there are dozens of others. Sometimes strikers wouk out in certain teams and others just don't and a lot of the time, track record doesn't reflect outcome. You can go back decades with this. Willie Pettigrew had been on the books with Alloa and Hibs I think, couldn't get a look in and then became a goal machine for us. Another mid 70's example, Mike Larnach set the heather on fire for Clydebank, went down south and faild, came back to us and failed again, went back to clydebank and started battering them in for fun again. (sorry, im an old c**t so my recollection of 70's transfers is immense 🙂 ).Tommy McLean signed Ally Graham from Ayr when he was the top goalscorer in the 2nd tier, but did nowt for us and got moved on.

Not having a go at you here mate, but when I see posters constantly carp about our clubs faiures in the signing department, it pisses me off, for a multitude of reasons. Most of them probably couldn't organise a Subbuteo team and have no idea about contracts, budgets etc and can't see the bigger picture. You canny just go on 'playmaker' and type in 'top league, proven 25 goal a season striker at under £2K per week, multiple assists welcome'. 

🙂

I'm not saying it's easy and we should be signing bargains all the time who are absolutely class, but on the other hand we shouldn't be getting it so badly wrong in all departments. Wilkinson, bit of a gamble, it hasn't worked out, that's fair. But Obika & Bair shouldn't be here in the first place, let alone Bair on a 2 year deal. As many other posters have said, we have bad transfer windows over and over again recently and we're in a cycle of signing shite that doesn't work out, KVV aside. You cannot deny that Kettlewell's signings have been extremely poor and underwhelming.

 

As for comparing Scott to Wilkinson, it's unfair to point out Wilkinson's recent few years. For the first 6 or 7 years of his career Wilkinson's record was very poor, not better than Scott's. Scott is a young lad still who had a bad injury who we also sold for 7 figures, so there's for sure a player in there. Also a slightly unfair as Scott normally plays wide left forward.

 

I completely agree it's a gamble to sign strikers, especially when we're battling it out with St Mirren etc who are in the same market, I just wish we'd win the bet far more often than we lose it.

[Benson]

20 minutes ago, bobbybingo said:

Fingers crossed Kettlewell can find some strikers who have good goal scoring records, are surplus to requirements at their current club (or even better, don't have a club), and are attracting zero interest from anyone with more money than us to spend - which seems to be any club at or above our level. 

So we are looking for a player with good goalscoring record,either surplus to requirements or doesn't have Club, that's attracting zero interest from a club that has more money than us,many joints have you had.

[Kmcalpin]

Irrespective of which strikers we sign, we need them to be fit and hit the ground running. No point in them taking 2 months to get fit/match fit.  

[bobbybingo]

12 minutes ago, GazzyB said:

I'm not saying it's easy and we should be signing bargains all the time who are absolutely class, but on the other hand we shouldn't be getting it so badly wrong in all departments. Wilkinson, bit of a gamble, it hasn't worked out, that's fair. But Obika & Bair shouldn't be here in the first place, let alone Bair on a 2 year deal. As many other posters have said, we have bad transfer windows over and over again recently and we're in a cycle of signing shite that doesn't work out, KVV aside. You cannot deny that Kettlewell's signings have been extremely poor and underwhelming.

 

As for comparing Scott to Wilkinson, it's unfair to point out Wilkinson's recent few years. For the first 6 or 7 years of his career Wilkinson's record was very poor, not better than Scott's. Scott is a young lad still who had a bad injury who we also sold for 7 figures, so there's for sure a player in there. Also a slightly unfair as Scott normally plays wide left forward.

 

I completely agree it's a gamble to sign strikers, especially when we're battling it out with St Mirren etc who are in the same market, I just wish we'd win the bet far more often than we lose it.

If strikers are meant to score goals, why has Bair been a bad signing?

[bobbybingo]

2 minutes ago, Benson said:

So we are looking for a player with good goalscoring record,either surplus to requirements or doesn't have Club, that's attracting zero interest from a club that has more money than us,many joints have you had.

None. The folk who expect us to bring in top quality strikers given those restrictions - which I think reflect our current state pretty accurately - might have their heads stuck in a bong, though.

[bobbybingo]

1 minute ago, wellgirl said:

We got Mika on loan and he turned out to be an asset. Why shouldnt we be able to attract a striker given that weve signed other players in the transfer window? I completely get the point you are making but other clubs were after Halliday and we got him. Money isn't always going to be the only consideration that will attract players to Motherwell. 

I think it's me you're really replying to, since those were my points.

Yeah, we got Biereth. He was a young guy who hadn't scored many goals at our level, but it worked out great for us. As soon as he proved himself, Arsenal recalled him and sent him off to a higher level. Repeating that success is the trick, and not all of the young players doing the rounds on loan will end up making it.

Halliday is far closer to the end of his career than the start and we'll see how it's looking once he's played a few games. If he was a few years younger we wouldn't have got a sniff. Hearts offloaded him to us, then go after Scott Fraser, a player a lot of us fancied when his name came up. That's where we're at.

[bobbybingo]

Just now, wellgirl said:

 

I am aware of how tough things are for Motherwell just now given that we don't have as much money to spend as other SPL clubs. 

I think just about everyone is. That's why some of the complaints about signings don't seem based in reality. I don't believe for a minute the guys we're bringing in are at the top of Kettlewell's shopping list. It's one thing having an eye for a good player, it's another thing entirely having the funds to sign them.