2025/26 Ins & Outs Discussion

[grizzlyg]

Clubs all over Europe seem to sell their young talent for great money so we shouldn't be any different.  We messed up with Max Johnston so don't want same mistake happening again

[grizzlyg]

JB says bids have been received.  As long as all from overseas then that's good with me as long as bids are sensible and with at least a 20% sell on 

[weeyin]

4 minutes ago, grizzlyg said:

Clubs all over Europe seem to sell their young talent for great money so we shouldn't be any different.  We messed up with Max Johnston so don't want same mistake happening again

Not sure what else we could have done with Johnston. He rejected our offers because he wanted to leave.

 

[texanwellfan]

1 hour ago, weeyin said:

He's in his last year of his contract, so would walk for a much smaller UEFA development fee next summer.

Thought he was signed till 2027?  Or I’m sure there could be an extension to suit MFC and Miller 

[stv]

26 minutes ago, texanwellfan said:

Thought he was signed till 2027?  Or I’m sure there could be an extension to suit MFC and Miller 

No I don't think so  🤔 

[Spiderpig]

STV news reporting that JBA has confirmed bids have been received for Miller but no further details, I can't see him starting against Rangers.

[Mccus28]

43 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

STV news reporting that JBA has confirmed bids have been received for Miller but no further details, I can't see him starting against Rangers.

We would be mad to start him

[texanwellfan]

I would assume, when it comes down to it, that it will be Miller and not the club that who determines which bid is accepted. If the club doesn’t pick the one he prefers then it could develop into a messy situation with one or more parties loosing out. 

[texanwellfan]

Just now, Mccus28 said:

We would be mad to start him

I hadn’t really been expecting him to play anyway. 

[grizzlyg]

2 hours ago, weeyin said:

Not sure what else we could have done with Johnston. He rejected our offers because he wanted to leave.

 

I just meant we should have got him a contract extension before he went out on loan before returning to us and having a great 6 months 

[wellgirl]

3 hours ago, weeyin said:

Not sure what else we could have done with Johnston. He rejected our offers because he wanted to leave.

 

Think the issue was that we didn't have him tied to a longer contract with us

[weeyin]

12 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

Think the issue was that we didn't have him tied to a longer contract with us

Same question though is how do you do that?

Talented players and their agents are aware of the interest months (or years) in advance, and just refuse contract extensions because they don't want to risk a transfer fee getting in the way of a move.

Miller's plan was more first team games, so it made sense for him to extend when he did.

Johnston's plan was to leave as soon as he could, so did not make sense for him or his career plans.

 

 

[wellgirl]

18 minutes ago, weeyin said:

Same question though is how do you do that?

Talented players and their agents are aware of the interest months (or years) in advance, and just refuse contract extensions because they don't want to risk a transfer fee getting in the way of a move.

Miller's plan was more first team games, so it made sense for him to extend when he did.

Johnston's plan was to leave as soon as he could, so did not make sense for him or his career plans.

 

 

Not sure but I know that Alexander got flak for sending him out on loan when he did 

[wellgirl]

20 minutes ago, weeyin said:

Same question though is how do you do that?

Talented players and their agents are aware of the interest months (or years) in advance, and just refuse contract extensions because they don't want to risk a transfer fee getting in the way of a move.

Miller's plan was more first team games, so it made sense for him to extend when he did.

Johnston's plan was to leave as soon as he could, so did not make sense for him or his career plans.

 

 

This is just a question but how do you know Johnsons plan was to leave us as soon as he could? I get the fact that Miller got more first team games than Johnson but maybe if Johnson had been started more regularly with Motherwell he might have stayed longer? 

[dennyc]

1 minute ago, wellgirl said:

This is just a question but how do you know Johnsons plan was to leave us as soon as he could? I get the fact that Miller got more first team games than Johnson but maybe if Johnson had been started more regularly with Motherwell he might have stayed longer? 

For Motherwell to have received compensation .....£350k.....from Sturm Graz, Johnston had to have rejected an offer from Motherwell before his contract expired. Otherwise no compensation due. Thems the rules. So he had a choice and opted to turn down our offer. 

The only real question is whether Motherwell could have persuaded him to extend earlier, perhaps when he returned from Cove? But lets be honest. He did ok on loan at QOS and Cove but it was only when he featured regularly in our first team that his performances took off. By then any team in Europe with a decent scouting system would be keeping an eye on him given his media coverage in Scotland as a possible young player of the year.. And no doubt quietly sounding out his Agent/Dad.

IMHO, the Club could have done little more and I believe he had already made his mind up to go overseas well before his contract expired. If I recall correctly nobody was surprised that he moved to Austria. Rumours were rife well before he left.

As WeeYin says, how on earth do you make a any player sign a new contract if they don't want to? And if you convince them to sign by offering daft money/length of contract  then you could be stuck with someone who fails to make the grade or regresses. We have been caught out that way before and possibly even now. It's certainly an issue that Clubs with a limited budget have to manage.

Also, in comparison to Johnston, Miller spent much more of his early years at Motherwell. Johnstone (I think) only joined us at age 12 and had no previous links to us. So perhaps LM felt a greater loyalty to us, received different advice from his father and so found it easier to extend. 

[Stuwell2]

15 minutes ago, weeyin said:

Miller's plan was more first team games, so it made sense for him to extend when he did.

Johnston's plan was to leave as soon as he could, so did not make sense for him or his career plans.

 

 

I think that’s it in a nutshell, Millers career path has been set for awhile now and it doesn’t include another season at FP. If there had been the possibility he might stay another season then his last contract extension would have included an option for a further year. The fact that it didn’t say to me that Motherwell were told one more year then he’s off. 

[wellgirl]

1 hour ago, dennyc said:

For Motherwell to have received compensation .....£350k.....from Sturm Graz, Johnston had to have rejected an offer from Motherwell before his contract expired. Otherwise no compensation due. Thems the rules. So he had a choice and opted to turn down our offer. 

The only real question is whether Motherwell could have persuaded him to extend earlier, perhaps when he returned from Cove? But lets be honest. He did ok on loan at QOS and Cove but it was only when he featured regularly in our first team that his performances took off. By then any team in Europe with a decent scouting system would be keeping an eye on him given his media coverage in Scotland as a possible young player of the year.. And no doubt quietly sounding out his Agent/Dad.

IMHO, the Club could have done little more and I believe he had already made his mind up to go overseas well before his contract expired. If I recall correctly nobody was surprised that he moved to Austria. Rumours were rife well before he left.

As WeeYin says, how on earth do you make a any player sign a new contract if they don't want to? And if you convince them to sign by offering daft money/length of contract  then you could be stuck with someone who fails to make the grade or regresses. We have been caught out that way before and possibly even now. It's certainly an issue that Clubs with a limited budget have to manage.

Also, in comparison to Johnston, Miller spent much more of his early years at Motherwell. Johnstone (I think) only joined us at age 12 and had no previous links to us. So perhaps LM felt a greater loyalty to us, received different advice from his father and so found it easier to extend. 

I thought we got compensation for Johnson because of his age - not because he turned down a new contract. Because he was under 23 we were due a fee under training development 

A quick Google search will confirm that's why we got compensation for Max 

Nothing to do with him being offered a contract and turning it down 

 

[dennyc]

14 minutes ago, wellgirl said:

I thought we got compensation for Johnson because of his age - not because he turned down a new contract. Because he was under 23 we were due a fee under training development 

A quick Google search will confirm that's why we got compensation for Max 

Nothing to do with him being offered a contract and turning it down 

 

My understanding is that,  to qualify for compensation, a contract has got to have been offered by the 'losing' club. Otherwise that Club is seen to be just releasing a player at contract end. Like happens to so many younger players.

Otherwise every player that is let go under a certain age would entitle clubs to compensation. Basically to qualify for compensation you have to demonstrate that you wanted to keep a player. For that reason a contract offer has to be made before a player's existing contract expires.

If you like you can check it all out by doing a search along the lines of ' Training and Solidarity Compensation payments in football'. Two different schemes.  Details age requirements, cross border requirements and contract basis amongst lots of other detail . Pages of it though so a glass of wine (white) might help! Happy reading.

[wellgirl]

14 minutes ago, dennyc said:

My understanding is that,  to qualify for compensation, a contract has got to have been offered by the 'losing' club. Otherwise that Club is seen to be just releasing a player at contract end. Like happens to so many younger players.

Otherwise every player that is let go under a certain age would entitle clubs to compensation. Basically to qualify for compensation you have to demonstrate that you wanted to keep a player. For that reason a contract offer has to be made before a player's existing contract expires.

If you like you can check it all out by doing a search along the lines of ' Training and Solidarity Compensation payments in football'. Two different schemes.  Details age requirements, cross border requirements and contract basis amongst lots of other detail . Pages of it though so a glass of wine (white) might help! Happy reading.

You may be right so I absolutely will look at that - but that isn't what comes up when you do a search  online.- it just says we were due the money because he came through the ranks at Motherwell and was under 23

I'll have a look tomorrow - thanks for that info. Appreciated 

[0Neils40yarder]

Dennyc is correct 

[wellgirl]

1 minute ago, 0Neils40yarder said:

Dennyc is correct 

Thanks for the clarification. 

[dennyc]

10 hours ago, wellgirl said:

You may be right so I absolutely will look at that - but that isn't what comes up when you do a search  online.- it just says we were due the money because he came through the ranks at Motherwell and was under 23

I'll have a look tomorrow - thanks for that info. Appreciated 

Just to add to the complications and confusion. It really is a minefield. 

Clubs who are losing a youngster (despite offering a new contract) very often do a deal with the new Club that bypasses the compensation rules that apply to cross border only movement. Like I believe we did with McKinstry to Leeds. Maybe building  in a larger up front fee with a lower sell on %. Or the other way round. That may suit both Clubs depending upon their financial situation at the time. 

For internal transfers the compensation rules usually do not apply. Like with Hastie to Rangers. (Individual Associations can adopt the International rules if they like, but Scotland don’t). So we did a deal with Rangers rather than go to a dodgy tribunal whose decision is final and a one off payment. Sometimes with no add on %. So you can get screwed. I understand we got £350k for Hastie plus decent add on had he moved on for big money. A Tribunal might not have been so generous. We will never know. 

Best recent example of a tribunal outcome is Lewis Ferguson to Aberdeen. Accies got £250k and a small add on %, the level of which was not disclosed. No appeal allowed despite Accies going public that they felt hard done to. Compare that to our Hastie deal. Aberdeen certainly scored when he moved to Italy. Accies may have still been due further training compensation if Ferguson had then left  Italy before a certain age….. but I’m not 100% sure on that. It is debatable and not specifically covered in the rules I read. 

I think Motherwell have actually done pretty well over the years, often successfully negotiating with the new Club. Bailey Rice a recent example.  Certainly for youngsters not fully established in our first team. We were unable to negotiate a better deal for MJ though as Graz were happy to go with the set compensation arrangements. No discussion. The ball was in their court as Max had decided to move on. No bad feeling from me on that one as he did what he thought best for himself. And he had only joined us age 12 and appeared in under 20 games for our first team. So very different from Miller.
We also lost out initially  on Cadden as the US were not in the International arrangement. And when they signed up under pressure from the ruling bodies, they were regarded as a lower tier country where lower amounts were due. 

History wise. After the Bosman ruling that players could just leave at Contract end with no compensation due (in line with other occupations) Clubs from several countries approached UEFA and FIFA asking them to set up a scheme  that rewarded Clubs for developing youngsters. Until they came up with the current scheme Clubs were due nothing. That was seen as a barrier to youth development. So why bother developing kids? The present arrangement is something that helps. Covers cross border only though which is a flaw in the system imo. Like many countries, Scotland opted to go to a tribunal for internal transfers if Clubs do not agree a deal. At least that recognises the need for some reward for youth development I guess. But it is not perfect. 
 

That’s my take on things anyway. Others may know differently. Told you it was a nightmare.😀