capt_oats

Just watched it there, certainly seems that's the intention. Clearly McHugh's concussion is a genuine concern (as it should be), if there's budget there then it makes sense if they feel Campbell's not quite ready for the first team, they can't put a date on McHugh's return and that's Lasley picked up another knock. At least they're in the position where they know what Lucas can/can't do, he's spent long enough at the club this summer. That said, it makes the decision to have him on the bench and not use him previously seem quite odd given that it seems the motivation to sign him now is based on the fact that he could have been used as cover off the bench today when Lasley had to go off. Who knows maybe McGhee just didn't fancy chucking a player who was essentially "on trial" and only had a couple of weeks of the short term deal to run into a league game. The fact that he seems to be a deep lying playmaker might mean he could offer a bit of creativity in the centre of the park as well. Though from the looks of things box to box running isn't his game, someone who can pick a pass in the middle of the park and look after the ball would be quite welcome.

Funny you say that as Bowman had retweeted a post on his Twitter account a while back. Basically the gist was that at the time he had (by an absolute mile) the best conversion rate in the league. While Amond of Grimsby had scored the most goals he'd needed more chances to do so. In Bowman's case he had scored 16 from 46 attempts at goal, 27 of which were on target. The table is here: https://twitter.com/kingoftherooks/status/724980031617912832 For what it's worth Amond had scored 30 from 91 attempts. I've no idea whether Bowman will make the step up or not or if we're applying sabremetric analysis to our scouting but his record seems to point to him being an efficient goalscorer.

I thought it was fairly obvious that we had been talking Johnson up with a view to selling him. Was McGhee not "amazed & astonished" that no one had come in for him at the end of the January window. Key part there to me is that "trying to sell" him doesn't necessarily mean shoving him out the door but rather talking the player up and positioning him as a sellable asset with value. It's all about groundwork. The part I picked up on, in what was a good press conference from McGhee, was that we were apparently "on the case" and "would have sold him anyway" (or words to that effect). I wonder if there were other options who were eventually put off by Johnson chucking his toys out the pram.

3-1 Hibs

#14 was Tom Fry according to the graphic on the official twitter feed. He's been impressive every time I've seen him as well tbf.

Interested to see who's available and given the nod for this. Does Hammell come back in for Chalmers despite a couple of decent showings and his u21 call-up (regardless of whether it was just a case of him answering the phone first or not)? Will Moult and McHugh make the bench after having been out for prolonged periods. Out of curiosity what's the timeline for someone coming back from concussion anyway? I know there are specific guidelines for it. I've noticed beyond the announcement of his loan there hasn't been any sort of coverage from the club's official channels about Belic. If we've brought him in from West Ham I'd imagine he's here to play but I'll be interested to see if he starts ahead of someone like Ainsworth straight away. County seem to have been quite hit or miss this season, pumped out the League Cup at the group stage, Dundee took them apart in Dingwall but they've beaten both ICT and Killie hence they're sitting in 4th place just now. Boyce seems to be back on form for them having scored 5 of their 6 goals in the league. Samson Tait Heneghan McManus Chalmers Cadden Lasley Clay Ainsworth Bowman McDonald A win would be nice.

I may have mentioned it on this thread (or somewhere else on the forum) but Michael Calvin's book The Nowhere Men is a good read on the academy system, youth development, scouting and the like.

Is it not something like in order to protect your right to compensation the contract offer has to be at least equal to the prior deal (or along those lines)? Edit: The rules on compensation are in Section F here if it's of any interest: here: http://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__therulesofthescottishprofessionalfootballleagueasat4august2016_1471856539.pdf The wage seems to relate to a guideline in determining a fee at tribunal.

With Cadden you'd think that with the fact that he'll still be under 23 at the end of that contract then the development contribution essentially guarantees a minimum value. Even if that contract does expire then much like say, Slater where the development fee was rumoured to have put off a few Scottish teams and unlike Johnson where Oxford were able to piss about with low opening offers it's not as if he could just walk away for nothing. Cuts both ways I suppose since where in Johnson's case the club were able to quote a valuation and work to an agreeable and arguably more realistic amount, in this case there would be a definite guaranteed value and any buyer would know they could hold off and that's the amount they'd be obliged to pay but when you look at the amount of work the club, McGhee et al had to put in to talking up Johnson to eventually get what they did vs what the club were paid for someone like Erwin then it's quite a stark contrast. In a sense, and I haven't really thought this through so I'll happily stand corrected, is there not an argument that Cadden's value increases purely based on the length of time he stays at the club and is playing games for now up until the season he turns 23 regardless of the length of his contract? Unlike an over 23 player such as Johnson. Having said that I've no wish to see Cadden end up at Colchester or the like and see him move out of contract. Clearly the club would be wanting to get a significant fee and he genuinely seems to have the potential to be a far better player than Johnson in but at worst there would be a baseline value particularly if he's able to start making appearances at u21 level. Am I right in thinking that elements such as international recognition and first team appearances factor in to the final compensation fee along with length of time at the club, and category of the buyer?

Don't know if anyone posted this at the time but here's Bowman getting involved in Gateshead's 6-1 demolition of McNamara's York City the other week.

Cheers, I figured something must have been up. I've a couple of pals who are Ayr fans and they bloody love him.

Not sure if it's been mentioned re: Bowman and him apparently having been a long term target over the summer. It seems our head of recruitment Martin Foyle was his manager at Hereford United. Scored 19 in 43 games for him (and was top scorer that season).

Law was playing right back for Oldham on Saturday so it must have been someone else.

By all accounts Belic is a striker as well. Any footage you watch he's one of the forwards.

I've no idea re: his performance in training etc. Others are far more more #ITK than I am. McGhee's said he's got the all clear injury-wise and I took the comment about sorting his head as a joke but giving Blyth the benefit of the doubt from what I've seen of him at other clubs via YouTube clips (rather than him being chucked on, unfit with 15 mins to go in a couple of games) and he seems to be more of a target man than anything else. Looking at his history, save one stint at Leamington which got him his move to Leicester, he's never been a particularly prolific goalscorer. Going back to last January where McGhee was talking about the lack of a physical presence up front, Blyth seems to have been brought in to address that however I don't necessarily think it fits with a fluid 433, more an "option" off the bench if we need to change things up. For all people are pointing to Bowman being 6' 2" from the clips you can find online and looking at his goals record he seems to be much more a traditional centre forward. From the looks of things he seems to be someone who's more in the mould of Moult. Possibly to play alongside him or equally someone who can chip in with goals and take a bit of the burden off in that respect. Given the injury Moult's rehabbing from it's probably not a bad idea if we have an approximate like for like option for him to come off the bench. That's not Blyth, it's not McDonald nor is it McFadden.

Not disagreeing however I've noticed that Moore's yet to play a game for Ayr this season. Is he injured again? With Blyth's injury, Moult coming back from injury and if Moore is indeed injured again then I can understand why he's added another striker. Though I agree in so much as I do have doubts as to whether or not Blyth was ever a particularly good fit in the first place. To be honest the only downside to the window for me was that we didn't have more of the 20s go out on loan. Looking at what's likely to be the first team XI and bench it's difficult to see where there's likely to be room for a Campbell, Mackin, Turnbull or MacLean to get a shot. Unless one of Chalmers or Kennedy is going to sit in the stand of a week then Dom Thomas' chances are probably going to be limited. Realistically in the 433 McGhee's talking about you'd think it'd be: Samson; Tait, Heneghan, McManus, Hammell; Cadden, McHugh, Clay; McDonald, Bowman, Moult Subs: Blyth, Brill, Ainsworth, Lasley, Kennedy, Chalmers, Belic There's no doubt that looks a much stronger bench than the inexperienced one McGhee was alluding to post-Rangers and Dundee but he's pointed out the benefit Cadden had from his loan and also how he hopes it'll improve Watt I'd say the same could be applied to a few of the others in the 20s group. Having said that you need the right club to want to take them, I've no idea whether or not clubs were approached about the aforementioned but I'd have thought there might have been at least a couple willing to take one or two beyond Watt on for six months.

For appearances sake it'd been nice if he'd been able to go to a club that wasn't Oxford but given they were the only team who seemed genuinely interested there's not a lot you can do. Also, it'd have a bit more palatable if he'd moved to a Championship side rather than League 1 but when it comes down to it the main thing is that Motherwell got their profit, that was the whole point of the exercise. Oxford's money is as good as anyone's and he didn't move to another side in Scotland which is a bonus. If the £650k being reported is legit then the club have made x20 their £30k outlay in the space of 18 months. Plus whatever add ons eventually kick in. Only going on "reported" figures in the press (so pinch of salt etc) but being hopelessly optimistic if the fee for Johnson was the £650k quoted then along with the £200k for Hall, the compensation for Pearson (I seem to recall £100k being mentioned somewhere) plus McGhee suggesting there was compensation received for Robbie Leitch then totalled up that's the best part of £1m income from player trading in the window, which isn't bad going tbh. Obviously an amount of that will go towards the repayments due to Les, Boyle and the WS but if there's scope to perhaps invest in +1 year extensions for Moult and Cadden (that'd take him up to 22 right?) then that could be a sensible move.

And he'll have taken it off a forum somewhere.

In fairness given the number of folk who bombard his personal account about MFC business on a daily basis I'd say his tweet is fair enough. Personally I'm amazed he actually bothers, I'd be muting like fuck if it were me.

That's been running all day tbf

Yer boy at HITC who's been punting the story all summer & also posted the link to Johnson's agent's statement is now running it.

Luke Watt to Stranraer on a development loan. https://twitter.com/MotherwellFC/status/771032492744773632

He does aye. http://www.tnsfc.co.uk/news/saintssfletch/

Just read the article Scott Burns linked to. That's hilarious. Almost a cut & paste job.

It's odd that the consistent criticisms of the club over the years have been the fact that they didn't talk players up and (apparently) took the first offer that came in for players. Now they've talked players up, given them profile and knocked back bids they're being criticised for that as well. It's a hypothetical but do you reckon Cadden would have been called up for the u21s if there hadn't been comments made publicly re: his omission? I find the club & manager talking up players to be a positive. Certainly there will be circumstances where it'll come back to bite them on the arse but I'd rather they were vocal about things than talking them down. Ultimately both parties want the same thing here, the club want to sell the player and the player wants to move on, earn more money and (if possible) play at a higher level. Everyone wants to make money and that's fine. It's amusing that the agent seems to have taken umbrage at the club stating their case publicly in a situation that he brought into the public domain. For all the agent's statement is blunt and arsey I can understand their position. Motherwell's business model is to sell players for profit, Johnson (and others) have been brought to the club on that promise. The issue or dispute here seems to be "what is reasonable?". Is it reasonable for Motherwell to be holding out for a fee that on the face of it, seems unrealistic? If they've been quoting £1m for the player yet the only concrete offer there's been is £300k from a League 1 side in England then that shows there is a definite disconnect between market value and Motherwell's valuation. Equally given all the chat from McGhee about Johnson having the quality to play at Championship level then if the bid then again speaking hypothetically, if the bid on the table is from a Championship side but the cash offer doesn't match MFC's valuation but is still offering a significant profit on the outlay is it reasonable to kb that? Strictly speaking, given he's a contracted player then of course it is but perhaps less so if you've been recruiting players on the promise of "we'll offer you a platform and if good offers come in we'll move you on." Again though in a circumstance such as this if there's no minimum release clause then it really needs both parties to agree on what constitutes a "good offer". There's quid pro quo there somewhere. I got the feeling that the £1m figure quoted was really to dissuade teams such as Oxford while not completely putting the player out of the reach of Championship sides. From the agent's point of view though it looks like clubs are being put off by whatever valuation Motherwell have for the player. There's not really much an agent can do to negotiate a deal if the buying club are looking at the fee and going "nah, you're all right." If the club genuinely wants to sell the player then there needs to be movement one way or another in terms of their position. For what it's worth though, I think the club have handled things pretty well. They've fought their corner robustly and they've not capitulated. They absolutely deserve credit for that IMO. The way they've handled the Johnson speculation and the McDonald approach has been refreshing and encouraging. I think they may well have misjudged demand/interest/value with regards Johnson but I'd much rather they were over-valuing our players than under-valuing.