Are Motherwell Entertaining?

[FirParkCornerExile]

4 hours ago, wellgirl said:

I agree with you that we have a squad as good as any other in the league but we've also been battered by injuries. It can't help when you can't play a consistent team - I also get that we aren't the only club in this position but - someone can correct me if I'm wrong - we've probably played quite defensively for some time now, although looking at our placing in the table last year we scored a decent amount of goals and let in almost as many. I think part of the issue is that we didn't replace Spittal effectively although I completely get that you aren't just going to get a like for like player. Bair moved on and we don't yet have a consistent goal scorer. We've had important players out too as I'm sure you don't need me to tell you. Miller. McGinn. Slattery. Gordon. Now Ox. 

As a self confessed "happy clapper" of course I want to see my team do well - I personally think we should be challenging for top 6 - but I'll stand by saying I think survival is the most important thing 

I don't want to see us in free fall either - but hopefully if we get a couple of good signings in the transfer window it might stop the decline. 

It doesn't help that we are competing in a market with teams who can offer better terms 

The competing with teams who a pay more is overblown. SureSt Mirren and Killie have bigger crows but jesus christ it's in the hundreds not in the thousands. A decent commercial side, small gains in the transfer market and running slightly smaller squad should able to negate most of that advantage. We have 4 teams that we should be able to compete with financially and that's Killie, St Mirren, Ross County and St Johnstone. To suggest otherwise is over egging it. 

[wellfan]

Kettlewell is almost 2 years into the job and currently into his fourth transfer window, yet it’s still not clear to me what type of team he’s trying to build.

Other than the often-cited hoofball tactic, and considering the ‘entertainment’ on show across the past 2 years, this Motherwell team lacks any sort of notable style or identity.

[FirParkCornerExile]

2 hours ago, wellgirl said:

I don't agree. Not to do with the crowds. To do with the budget and what we can afford to spend on players. Just because they have slightly bigger crowds doesn't mean we have similar budgets to spend on players - both Killie and St Mirren priced us out of going for KVV - Killie had over a thousand fans more than us over last season - but I don't think crowds translate to budgets - they both offered twice what we did for KVV - if you have someone prepared to pay from their own pocket to sign a striker like Killie did with Kev the fact that we have similar crowds is irrelevant 

We could have paid KVV what he was asking for, to suggest we couldn't is nonsense.  Kilmarnock paid him £7 grand a week for 20 weeks £140,000, a Kilmarnock Director was willing to pay that from his own money, thankfully we dont have any idiots whod do that...... we spent more than that to bring Stamma in. So its not that we dont have access to money but we wisely chose not to pay KVV that money cos he wasn't worth it . If you think St Mirren and Kilmarnock pay vastly greater wages you are wrong. 

 

Last published Accounts online and at companies house to 2023

Motherwells staff costs were £5.2 million 

St Mirrens staff costs were £3.82 million 

Kilmarnocks staff costs were £3.71 million

St Johnstones staff costs were £3.96 million

Going forward this scenario will ebb and flow as I expect with both St Mirren Kilmarnock getting into Europe the bonuses would be better whilst we ended up bottom half but on basic salaries its just not true these clubs pay far more than us.. Although Motherwell do love to whinge how they have the lowest budget ibn the league...   

[0Neils40yarder]

9 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

We could have paid KVV what he was asking for, to suggest we couldn't is nonsense.  Kilmarnock paid him £7 grand a week for 20 weeks £140,000 .. we spent more than that to bring Stamma in. We wisely chose not to pay KVV that money cos he wasn't worth it . If you think St Mirren and Kilmarnock pay vastly greater wages you are wrong. 

 

Last published Accounts online and at companies house to 2023

Motherwells staff costs were £5.2 million 

St Mirrens staff costs were £3.82 million 

Kilmarnocks staff costs were £3.71 million

St Johnstones staff costs were £3.96 million

Going forward this scenario will ebb and flow as I expect with both St Mirren Kilmarnock getting into Europe the bonuses would be better whilst we ended up bottom half but on basic salaries its just not true these clubs pay far more than us.. Although Motherwell do love to whinge how they have the lowest budget ibn the league...   

Cannae beat facts

[David]

19 hours ago, thewelllfan said:

Now we have to recruit a LWB and a Striker with a bit more of a presence ideally in the mould of Moult or KVV where they are physical with a bit of mobility.

If he was given these things as well as maybe a ball player at CB we should in theory become easier on the eye.

It goes without saying that the club would love nothing more than to dive into the transfer market and secure a top-quality left wing-back with similar attributes to Kaleta on the opposite side, for instance, as well as a striker in the mould of Moult or Van Veen.

If such players were available, affordable, and interested in joining Motherwell, there’s no doubt we’d pursue them, just as we have done successfully in the past. However, the reality is that the market largely dictates our options. We operate within a specific bracket of the transfer market during both the summer and January windows, where our focus is on identifying players who meet our criteria, fit within our wage structure, and, most critically, are willing to make the move to Motherwell. This typically means they have a personal reason for relocating to this part of Scotland, they’re coming on loan with their parent club viewing the move as beneficial to their development, or they don’t have stronger offers from elsewhere.

The challenge arises when these opportunities aren’t materialising during a particular window. What then? While we’ve managed to recruit quality players in the past, it often requires everything falling perfectly into place to make it happen.

14 hours ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

The competing with teams who a pay more is overblown.

The reality is, not only are we holding our own against teams that often have the means to spend more on players, but we’re actually outperforming them more often than not.

In the past five seasons, Kilmarnock have only finished above us in the league once. St Mirren have managed it twice, St Johnstone once, and Ross County haven’t done so at all. And this season so far? Not a single one of those teams is ahead of us in the table.

12 hours ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

We could have paid KVV what he was asking for, to suggest we couldn't is nonsense.  Kilmarnock paid him £7 grand a week for 20 weeks £140,000, a Kilmarnock Director was willing to pay that from his own money, thankfully we dont have any idiots whod do that...... we spent more than that to bring Stamma in. So its not that we dont have access to money but we wisely chose not to pay KVV that money cos he wasn't worth it .

Transfer fees often involve structured payment plans, with specific milestones triggering additional payments. In many cases, these fees are spread over several years. The expectation is usually that the investment will yield returns, whether through the player’s on-field contributions or future sell-on potential – especially when signing a 25-year-old with resale value.

Wages, however, are a completely different matter. For a start, bringing in a player on a significantly higher salary than anyone else at the club can create tension within the squad. It also establishes a benchmark that complicates future contract negotiations.

As for your point about Van Veen, you suggest we could have matched his wage demands. Surely, by that logic, Kilmarnock could have done the same, couldn’t they? If so, why did a director have to personally contribute from his own funds?

12 hours ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

Last published Accounts online and at companies house to 2023

Motherwells staff costs were £5.2 million 

St Mirrens staff costs were £3.82 million 

Kilmarnocks staff costs were £3.71 million

St Johnstones staff costs were £3.96 million

Do the reported staff costs include all club employees or just the playing staff? I wonder if they also account for payments made to the various managers we've had in the year or so leading up to those accounts, along with their coaching teams and associated costs.

As with most things, it’s not a straightforward matter. What’s frustrating is that if many of our supporters had their way, we’d constantly be paying out to replace managers and coaching staff, which would only serve to keep our staff expenses consistently high.

[FirParkCornerExile]

27 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

All club expenses - including paying off of former managers, bonuses for getting into Europe and match day staff I believe. 

..

 

31 minutes ago, David said:

It goes without saying that the club would love nothing more than to dive into the transfer market and secure a top-quality left wing-back with similar attributes to Kaleta on the opposite side, for instance, as well as a striker in the mould of Moult or Van Veen.

If such players were available, affordable, and interested in joining Motherwell, there’s no doubt we’d pursue them, just as we have done successfully in the past. However, the reality is that the market largely dictates our options. We operate within a specific bracket of the transfer market during both the summer and January windows, where our focus is on identifying players who meet our criteria, fit within our wage structure, and, most critically, are willing to make the move to Motherwell. This typically means they have a personal reason for relocating to this part of Scotland, they’re coming on loan with their parent club viewing the move as beneficial to their development, or they don’t have stronger offers from elsewhere.

The challenge arises when these opportunities aren’t materialising during a particular window. What then? While we’ve managed to recruit quality players in the past, it often requires everything falling perfectly into place to make it happen.

The reality is, not only are we holding our own against teams that often have the means to spend more on players, but we’re actually outperforming them more often than not.

In the past five seasons, Kilmarnock have only finished above us in the league once. St Mirren have managed it twice, St Johnstone once, and Ross County haven’t done so at all. And this season so far? Not a single one of those teams is ahead of us in the table.

Transfer fees often involve structured payment plans, with specific milestones triggering additional payments. In many cases, these fees are spread over several years. The expectation is usually that the investment will yield returns, whether through the player’s on-field contributions or future sell-on potential – especially when signing a 25-year-old with resale value.

Wages, however, are a completely different matter. For a start, bringing in a player on a significantly higher salary than anyone else at the club can create tension within the squad. It also establishes a benchmark that complicates future contract negotiations.

As for your point about Van Veen, you suggest we could have matched his wage demands. Surely, by that logic, Kilmarnock could have done the same, couldn’t they? If so, why did a director have to personally contribute from his own funds?

Do the reported staff costs include all club employees or just the playing staff? I wonder if they also account for payments made to the various managers we've had in the year or so leading up to those accounts, along with their coaching teams and associated costs.

As with most things, it’s not a straightforward matter. What’s frustrating is that if many of our supporters had their way, we’d constantly be paying out to replace managers and coaching staff, which would only serve to keep our staff expenses consistently high.

.  

[FirParkCornerExile]

1 hour ago, David said:

It goes without saying that the club would love nothing more than to dive into the transfer market and secure a top-quality left wing-back with similar attributes to Kaleta on the opposite side, for instance, as well as a striker in the mould of Moult or Van Veen.

If such players were available, affordable, and interested in joining Motherwell, there’s no doubt we’d pursue them, just as we have done successfully in the past. However, the reality is that the market largely dictates our options. We operate within a specific bracket of the transfer market during both the summer and January windows, where our focus is on identifying players who meet our criteria, fit within our wage structure, and, most critically, are willing to make the move to Motherwell. This typically means they have a personal reason for relocating to this part of Scotland, they’re coming on loan with their parent club viewing the move as beneficial to their development, or they don’t have stronger offers from elsewhere.

The challenge arises when these opportunities aren’t materialising during a particular window. What then? While we’ve managed to recruit quality players in the past, it often requires everything falling perfectly into place to make it happen.

The reality is, not only are we holding our own against teams that often have the means to spend more on players, but we’re actually outperforming them more often than not.

In the past five seasons, Kilmarnock have only finished above us in the league once. St Mirren have managed it twice, St Johnstone once, and Ross County haven’t done so at all. And this season so far? Not a single one of those teams is ahead of us in the table.

Transfer fees often involve structured payment plans, with specific milestones triggering additional payments. In many cases, these fees are spread over several years. The expectation is usually that the investment will yield returns, whether through the player’s on-field contributions or future sell-on potential – especially when signing a 25-year-old with resale value.

Wages, however, are a completely different matter. For a start, bringing in a player on a significantly higher salary than anyone else at the club can create tension within the squad. It also establishes a benchmark that complicates future contract negotiations.

As for your point about Van Veen, you suggest we could have matched his wage demands. Surely, by that logic, Kilmarnock could have done the same, couldn’t they? If so, why did a director have to personally contribute from his own funds?

Do the reported staff costs include all club employees or just the playing staff? I wonder if they also account for payments made to the various managers we've had in the year or so leading up to those accounts, along with their coaching teams and associated costs.

As with most things, it’s not a straightforward matter. What’s frustrating is that if many of our supporters had their way, we’d constantly be paying out to replace managers and coaching staff, which would only serve to keep our staff expenses consistently high.

You raise many points which can open up into other discussions but do confirm that we do compete with them and had this mythical gulf been so great we certainly wouldn't have out performed them.. 

In relation to some people assertion that the financial gulf between us and 4 or 5 other teams is a severe one , I don't agree , its over blown. That's not to say it never will be if the Well society don't realise their plans to increase or income streams and attendances. 

The staffing costs are the staffing costs and we paid them. You are correct its not straightforward, that's why I said these figures will ebb and flow season to season because clubs will come into funds and have reduced funds depending on the season they have.  Before anyone pipes up I know we ran a deficit in 2023, so did St Mirren, so did Kilmarnock. Kilmarnock's even bigger than ours at £1.9 million.

As for KVV he cost Kilmarnock £140,000 for 6 months. Why the Kilmarnock Director personally funded it is their business, maybe because they were running a £1.9 million pound loss!! . If Motherwell had had an urgent unexpected bill for £200,000 is anyone seriously saying we couldn't have paid for it. Of course we could, so to suggest we couldn't have raised £140,000 to pay for KVV is nonsense. We made a sound financial decision not to sign him. Any club can make stupid irrational signings if they wish. Had the club desperately wanted him they could have raised the money , would have been a crazy decision but they could do it. Christ the Well Society is sitting on £750,000 the club could have asked them had they been so desperate to get him. 

Anyway much of the argument - I realise you are not of the opinion we cant compete - but for those who do think that,  we are arguing about hairs on a bald mans head. For people to suggest we cant compete with RC , Kilmarnock, St Mirren and St Johnstone because they pay far bigger wages is nonsense, albeit the way Motherwell moan you'd think Albion Rovers could give us a run for our money financially.

ALL the clubs discussed are mid ranking teams of a similar size who compete on pretty much a level playing field.

Finally going by the logic offered in the argument that we cant compete financially with clubs mentioned,  that means Hibs cant compete with Hearts , is anyone seriously suggesting that's the case?

[David]

6 minutes ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

To suggest we cant compete with RC , Kilmarnock, St Mirren and St Johnstone because they pay far bigger wages is nonsense.  

Did you see where I said the following?

40 minutes ago, David said:

In the past five seasons, Kilmarnock have only finished above us in the league once. St Mirren have managed it twice, St Johnstone once, and Ross County haven’t done so at all. And this season so far? Not a single one of those teams is ahead of us in the table.

So we are competing. And more often than not, we're bettering them.

[FirParkCornerExile]

Just now, David said:

Did you see where I said the following?

So we are competing. And more often than not, we're bettering them.

Apologies I amended my reply to you. I was looking at Wellgirls reply at the time.   

[David]

1 hour ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

Apologies I amended my reply to you. I was looking at Wellgirls reply at the time.

No worries, it happens to us all at some point, the discussions are so back & forth it's easy to do.

1 hour ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

In relation to some people assertion that the financial gulf between us and 4 or 5 other teams is a severe one , I don't agree , its over blown. That's not to say it never will be if the Well society don't realise their plans to increase or income streams and attendances. 

While I wouldn’t describe it as "severe," I do believe the issue of ownership plays a role. I’m as much of a supporter of our fan ownership model as anyone—of course, I am—but it does impact our ability to compete with clubs that are backed by wealthy owners or majority shareholders. That’s simply the reality of the situation. I’m not complaining about it, particularly since, in the main, we’ve outperformed those clubs where it truly counts—on the pitch.

As we’ve seen, spending more on players doesn’t necessarily guarantee success. However, it’s undeniable that if a club has greater financial resources and uses them wisely, it’s more likely to achieve better results than those with less funds at their disposal.

That said, our recent track record shows we’re actually doing quite well against the clubs around us, for the most part.

1 hour ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

The staffing costs are the staffing costs and we paid them. You are correct its not straightforward, that's why I said these figures will ebb and flow season to season because clubs will come into funds and have reduced funds depending on the season they have.  Before anyone pipes up I know we ran a deficit in 2023, so did St Mirren, so did Kilmarnock. Kilmarnock's even bigger than ours at £1.9 million.

Do bear in mind that having higher staffing costs doesn’t automatically mean we’re paying, or even in a position to pay, more in player wages or transfer fees compared to the other clubs you’ve mentioned.

On the deficits you’ve pointed out, it’s worth highlighting the role ownership plays in that. For instance, a club like Kilmarnock benefits from Billy Bowie, who has the ability to dip into his own resources to cover such shortfalls. We, on the other hand, don’t have that luxury, which is precisely why we need to be cautious about overextending ourselves on player salaries. It’s vital to ensure we avoid putting the club at risk of financial difficulties.

2 hours ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

As for KVV he cost Kilmarnock £140,000 for 6 months. Why the Kilmarnock Director personally funded it is their business, maybe because they were running a £1.9 million pound loss!! . If Motherwell had had an urgent unexpected bill for £200,000 is anyone seriously saying we couldn't have paid for it. Of course we could, so to suggest we couldn't have raised £140,000 to pay for KVV is nonsense. We made a sound financial decision not to sign him. Any club can make stupid irrational signings if they wish. Had the club desperately wanted him they could have raised the money , would have been a crazy decision but they could do it. Christ the Well Society is sitting on £750,000 the club could have asked them had they been so desperate to get him. 

There’s a distinction to be made between an unforeseen, urgent expense and choosing to commit to a cost for a player when it isn’t a necessity, isn’t there? And while it’s true that the Society has funds in reserve, I’m not entirely convinced the board would have been willing to allocate as much as £140,000 of members’ contributions to fund the wages of a player we'd only have at the club on loan.

2 hours ago, FirParkCornerExile said:

Finally going by the logic offered in the argument that we cant compete financially with clubs mentioned,  that means Hibs cant compete with Hearts , is anyone seriously suggesting that's the case?

I’m not entirely sure about the situation with Hibs and Hearts, to be honest. However, when it comes to us and other clubs in a similar position, I believe it largely comes down to the financial support that owners or majority shareholders at those clubs can offer. They often have that safety net to fall back on if needed, whereas we simply don’t have that luxury.

In a way, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. We’re forced to operate within our means, which is how it should be. Clubs that spend beyond their income tend to end up in serious trouble sooner or later—unless, of course, there’s someone willing to absorb the debts.